ST, R (on the application of) v Carmarthenshire County Council [2026] EWHC 2038 (Admin)

[2026] EWHC 2038 (Admin)Case No AC-2026-CDF-000095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, 2 Park Street, Cardiff, CF10 1ETDate 4 August 2026
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE KEYSER KCSITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Between
on the application of STClaimantby her litigation friend KTClaimantCARMARTHENSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILDefendant(1) BOARD OF GOVERNORS OFInterested PartiesYSGOL LLANSTEFFANInterested Party(2) BOARD OF GOVERNORS OFInterested PartyYSGOL LLANGAINInterested Party
Christian Howells (instructed by Sinclairs Law) for ClaimantOwen Prys Lewis (instructed by Law, Governance and Civil Services) for Defendant for The Interested Parties did not appear.Hearing Hearing date: 23 July 2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 4 August 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................HIS HONOUR JUDGE KEYSER KC
[1]This is a claim for judicial review of the defendant’s decision on 4 March 2026 (“the Decision”) to discontinue Ysgol Llansteffan (“the School”) from 31 August 2026 and to re-designate and include the catchment area of the School within the existing catchment area of Ysgol Llangain from 1 September 2026. The claimant is a pupil at the School.[2]The three grounds of challenge are, in outline, as follows:(1) the defendant unreasonably made its decision on the basis of financial information that was out of date;(2) the defendant failed to recognise that a decision to close the School required that there be a “strong case” for closure;(3) the defendant breached the socio-economic duty in section 1 of the Equality Act 2010.[3]By order dated 16 June 2026 His Honour Judge Jarman KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, made an anonymity order, appointed the claimant’s mother as litigation friend, and directed an expedited rolled-up hearing. This is my judgment after that hearing.[4]I am grateful to Mr Christian Howells and Mr Owen Prys Lewis, counsel respectively for the claimant and the defendant, for their helpful submissions. (I should also acknowledge Mr Joseph Edwards, who settled the defendant’s Detailed Grounds of Defence.) The School and Ysgol Llangain, which were named as interested parties, have taken no part in the proceedings.[5]The remainder of this judgment is structured as follows:• Paragraphs 6 to 27 set out the statutory framework within which the Decision was made, together with relevant materials relating to the socio-economic duty.• Paragraphs 28 to 68 work in some detail through the stages of the defendant’s decision-making process. This section contains a regrettably large amount of quotation from the documents; this is, however, the best way of understanding what informed the Decision.• Paragraphs 69 to 107 discuss the issues. The Legal Framework The School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013

The Legal Framework

[6]The relevant statutory provisions relating to the organisation of schools in Wales are in Part 3 of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”), which is an Act of the National Assembly for Wales.[7]Sections 38 and 39 make provision in respect of a School Organisation Code. Section 38 provides in relevant part:
“38. School Organisation Code (1) The Welsh Ministers must issue, and may from time to time revise, a code on school organisation (‘the Code’). (2) The Code is to contain provision about the exercise of the functions of the following persons under this Part— … (b) local authorities; … (3) The Code may impose requirements, and may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters. (4) The persons referred to in subsection (2) must, when exercising functions under this Part— (a) act in accordance with any relevant requirements contained in the Code, and (b) have regard to any relevant guidelines contained in it. …”
I shall refer to the provisions of the Code below. … (b) local authorities; … (a) act in accordance with any relevant requirements contained in the Code, and (b) have regard to any relevant guidelines contained in it.[8]Section 40 of the 2013 Act makes provision in respect of the discontinuance of maintained schools, among other things, and provides in relevant part:
“(3) A maintained school may be discontinued only in accordance with this Part. … (6) Subsection (3) has effect subject to section 16(5) (power of Welsh Ministers to direct closure of school).” (The present case does not concern a direction by Welsh Ministers.) Section 83(3) provides: “(3) A reference in this Part to the discontinuance of a maintained school is a reference to the local authority ceasing to maintain it.”
Section 98(3) provides that:
“‘maintained school’ (‘ysgol a gynhelir’) means a school in Wales which is a community, foundation or voluntary school, a community special school or a maintained nursery school”
. It is common ground that the School is a community school and thus a maintained school.[9]Section 43 of the 2013 Act provides in relevant part:
“43. Proposals to discontinue mainstream schools (1) A local authority may make proposals to discontinue— (a) a community, foundation or voluntary school, or (b) a maintained nursery school.” (a) a community, foundation or voluntary school, or (b) a maintained nursery school.”
[10]Section 48 contains provisions requiring the proposer to consult on proposals and publish them and to publish a report on the consultation it has carried out, all in accordance with the Code.[11]Section 49 makes provision for objections to a proposal and requires the proposer to publish a summary of the objections and its response to them.[12]In the present case, section 53 applies:
“53. Determination (1) Where any proposals published under section 48 do not require approval under section 50 or 51, the proposer must determine whether the proposals should be implemented. (2) If a determination under subsection (1) is not made before the end of 16 weeks beginning with the end of the objection period, the proposer is to be taken to have withdrawn the proposals. (3) Before the end of 7 days beginning with the day of its determination under subsection (1), the proposer must notify the following of the determination— (a) the Welsh Ministers; (b) (except where it is the proposer) the local authority that maintains, or that it is proposed will maintain, the school to which the proposals relate; (c) (except where it is the proposer) the governing body (if any) of the school to which the proposals relate.” (a) the Welsh Ministers; (b) (except where it is the proposer) the local authority that maintains, or that it is proposed will maintain, the school to which the proposals relate; (c) (except where it is the proposer) the governing body (if any) of the school to which the proposals relate.”
[13]Section 54 provides in part:
“54. Referral to the Welsh Ministers (1) This section applies if a local authority has— (a) determined to approve or reject proposals under section 51(4), or (b) determined under section 53(1) to implement proposals to which there was an objection made in accordance with section 49 (and which was not withdrawn in writing before the end of 28 days beginning with the end of the objection period). (2) Before the end of 28 days beginning with the day of the local authority's determination under section 51(4) or 53(1), the following may refer the proposals to the Welsh Minister— (a) another local authority which is likely to be affected by the proposals; (b) a local authority in England which is likely to be affected by the proposals ; (c) the appropriate religious body for— (i) the school to which the proposals relate if it is, or is intended to be, a school which has a religious character, or (ii) any other school which has a religious character and which is likely to be affected by the proposals; (d) if the school to which the proposals relate is a foundation or voluntary school, the governing body of the school; (e) a trust holding property for the purpose of the school to which the proposals relate; (f) an institution within the further education sector which is likely to be affected by the proposals. … (4) The Welsh Ministers must consider proposals referred to them under this section afresh and subsections (5) to (8) of section 50 apply as if the proposals required their approval under that section. (5) Proposals made under section 43 or 44 to discontinue a school which is a small school (see section 56) may not be referred to the Welsh Ministers under this section.”
However, section 56(1) defines a “small school” as “a school with fewer than 10 registered pupils on the third Tuesday in the January immediately preceding the date on which the proposals are made.” The School is a “small school”, within that definition, and the power to refer the proposal to the Welsh Ministers did not arise. (a) determined to approve or reject proposals under section 51(4), or (b) determined under section 53(1) to implement proposals to which there was an objection made in accordance with section 49 (and which was not withdrawn in writing before the end of 28 days beginning with the end of the objection period). (a) another local authority which is likely to be affected by the proposals; (b) a local authority in England which is likely to be affected by the proposals ; (c) the appropriate religious body for— (i) the school to which the proposals relate if it is, or is intended to be, a school which has a religious character, or (ii) any other school which has a religious character and which is likely to be affected by the proposals; (d) if the school to which the proposals relate is a foundation or voluntary school, the governing body of the school; (e) a trust holding property for the purpose of the school to which the proposals relate; (f) an institution within the further education sector which is likely to be affected by the proposals.

The School Organisation Code

[14]The first edition of the Welsh Government’s School Organisation Code, made under section 38 of the 2013 Act, came into force on 1 October 2013. The second edition (“the Code”), which applies in the present case, came into force on 1 November 2018. In view of its importance, I shall refer to it extensively; footnotes are omitted, but text is shown in bold or italics in accordance with the published text.[15]The Summary section contains the following relevant paragraphs. “The Code contains the following elements: 1. It imposes requirements in accordance with which relevant bodies (or persons exercising a function for the purpose of the discharge, by a local authority or the governing body of a maintained school, of functions in Part 2 (changes which require proposals)) must act. Failure by a relevant body to comply with the requirements set out in this Code may result in a complaint to the Welsh Ministers or to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. Where mandatory requirements are imposed by the Code or by the 2013 Act or another statute or statutory instrument, it is stated that the relevant bodies must comply with the particular provision. Where practices are prohibited, it is stated that the relevant bodies must not use this practice. 2. It includes statutory guidance to which relevant bodies must have regard and sets out the policy context, general principles and factors that should be taken into account by those bringing forward proposals to reconfigure school provision and by those responsible for determining proposals. Where guidance is given by the Code, it is stated that relevant bodies should follow this guidance unless they can demonstrate that they are justified in not doing so. 3. It provides a description of the statutory requirements set out in the 2013 Act.” “Presumption against the closure of rural schools This second edition of the Code makes special arrangements for rural schools (defined within the Code), establishing a procedural presumption against the closure of rural schools. This requires proposers to follow a more detailed set of procedures and requirements in formulating a rural school closure proposal and in consulting on and reaching a decision as to whether to implement a rural school closure proposal. These are set out mainly in sections 1.8 and followed through in sections 3, 5, 7 and Annex A of this Code.”[16]Chapter 1 is titled “Development and consideration of proposals”. It contains the following relevant sections that are applicable to proposals for the closure of any school. “1.2 Factors to be taken into account in preparing, publishing, approving or determining school organisation proposals The following paragraphs set out the factors which should be taken into account by relevant bodies when exercising their functions of preparing and publishing school organisation proposals, or approving/determining them. Paragraphs 1.3 to 1.6 are applicable in the case of all proposals.” “1.4 Need for places and the impact on accessibility of schools … relevant bodies should have regard to the following factors: Where a school closure [defined to mean, for the purposes of the Code, the discontinuance of a maintained school as set out in section 40 of the 2013 Act], reduction in capacity or age range contraction is proposed:• whether alternative school-based provision will have sufficient capacity and provide accommodation of at least equivalent quality, for existing and projected pupil numbers;• …• the nature of journeys to alternative provision and resulting journey times for pupils including SEN pupils; in particular whether primary school pupils will have one-way journeys in excess of 45 minutes or secondary school pupils one way [sic] journeys of over an hour. Arrangements for accessing the alternative provision should [sic] encourage sustainable transport; and should address the possible effect of any transport difficulties on pupils’ engagement with and attendance at school. Likely walking or cycling routes for safety and accessibility should be assessed prior to bringing forward proposals” (a reference to Chapter 5 of The Learner Travel Statutory Provision and Operational Guidance, June 2014). “1.5 Resourcing of education and other financial implications It is important that funding for education is cost effective. Relevant bodies should take into account the following factors in relation to the resourcing of education:• What effect proposals will have on surplus places in the area; Some spare places are necessary to enable schools to cope with fluctuations in numbers of pupils, but excessive numbers of unused places that could be removed mean that resources are tied up unproductively. Where there are more than 10% surplus places in an area overall, local authorities should review their provision and should consider whether to make proposals for their removal if this will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of provision. A significant level of surplus provision is defined as 25% or more of a school’s capacity (as defined in Circular 21/2011) and at least 30 unfilled places. Although local authorities are asked to manage excessive surplus places this does not automatically mean closing schools. Sections 1.7 and 1.8 of the Code encourage proposers to look at other options available to them and their schools, for example clustering, collaboration or federation with other schools to increase the school’s viability or making use of the existing buildings as a community resource. They are also encouraged to rationalise school space by co-locating services within the school to offset costs. … Relevant bodies should also take into account the following factors in relation to finance:• the recurrent costs of proposals over a period of at least 3 years and whether the necessary recurrent funding is available;• additional transport costs incurred as a result of proposals; …• the capital costs of proposals and whether the necessary capital funding is available;• the scale of any projected net savings (taking into account school revenue, transport and capital costs); …• whether, without the proposals, the schools affected would face budget• deficits;• whether any savings in recurrent costs will be retained in the local authority's local schools' budget; and• whether the proceeds of sales (capital receipts) of redundant sites are to be made available to meet the costs of the proposal or contribute to the costs of future proposals which will promote effective management of school places.” “1.7 Specific factors in the consideration of school closures The prime purpose of schools is the provision of education and any case for closure should be robust and in the best interests of educational provision in the area. Nevertheless, in some areas, a school may also be the main focal point for community activity, and its closure could have implications beyond the issue of the provision of education. This may be a particular feature in rural areas if school buildings are used as a place to provide services to the local community. The case prepared by those bringing forward proposals should show that the impact of closure on the community has been assessed through the production of a Community Impact Assessment and how any community facilities currently provided by the school could be maintained. When considering whether a closure is appropriate, special attention should be given to the following:• whether the establishment of multi-site schools might be considered as a means of retaining buildings, or the reasons for not pursuing this option;• whether alternatives to closure, such as clustering, collaboration or federation with other schools, might be considered (taking account of the scope for use of ICT links between school sites) or the reasons for not pursuing these as an alternative;• whether the possibility of making fuller use of the existing buildings as a community or educational resource could be explored; (Local authorities should consider whether it would be feasible and economical to co-locate local services within the school to offset the costs of maintaining the school);• the overall effect of closure on the local community (including the loss of school based facilities which are used by the local community [sic]; and• how parents’ and pupils’ engagement with the alternative school and any facilities it may offer could be supported (e.g. how pupils; particularly any less advantaged pupils) will be helped to participate in after school activities). Although under the 2013 Act the requirement to consult does not apply to proposals to discontinue small schools with fewer than 10 pupils at the preceding January census point local authorities and governing bodies bringing forward such proposals must still take into account the factors set out in this Code.” … relevant bodies should have regard to the following factors:• whether alternative school-based provision will have sufficient capacity and provide accommodation of at least equivalent quality, for existing and projected pupil numbers;• …• the nature of journeys to alternative provision and resulting journey times for pupils including SEN pupils; in particular whether primary school pupils will have one-way journeys in excess of 45 minutes or secondary school pupils one way [sic] journeys of over an hour. Arrangements for accessing the alternative provision should [sic] encourage sustainable transport; and should address the possible effect of any transport difficulties on pupils’ engagement with and attendance at school. Likely walking or cycling routes for safety and accessibility should be assessed prior to bringing forward proposals” (a reference to Chapter 5 of The Learner Travel Statutory Provision and Operational Guidance, June 2014).• What effect proposals will have on surplus places in the area;• the recurrent costs of proposals over a period of at least 3 years and whether the necessary recurrent funding is available;• additional transport costs incurred as a result of proposals; …• the capital costs of proposals and whether the necessary capital funding is available;• the scale of any projected net savings (taking into account school revenue, transport and capital costs); …• whether, without the proposals, the schools affected would face budget• deficits;• whether any savings in recurrent costs will be retained in the local authority's local schools' budget; and• whether the proceeds of sales (capital receipts) of redundant sites are to be made available to meet the costs of the proposal or contribute to the costs of future proposals which will promote effective management of school places.”• whether the establishment of multi-site schools might be considered as a means of retaining buildings, or the reasons for not pursuing this option;• whether alternatives to closure, such as clustering, collaboration or federation with other schools, might be considered (taking account of the scope for use of ICT links between school sites) or the reasons for not pursuing these as an alternative;• whether the possibility of making fuller use of the existing buildings as a community or educational resource could be explored; (Local authorities should consider whether it would be feasible and economical to co-locate local services within the school to offset the costs of maintaining the school);• the overall effect of closure on the local community (including the loss of school based facilities which are used by the local community [sic]; and• how parents’ and pupils’ engagement with the alternative school and any facilities it may offer could be supported (e.g. how pupils; particularly any less advantaged pupils) will be helped to participate in after school activities).

… relevant bodies should have regard to the following factors:

[17]The text quoted above from Chapter 1 largely replicates text in the 1st edition of the Code. I note here the following differences. First, in the italicised text in section 1.4 the first “should” (“… the alternative provision should encourage sustainable transport …”) is in bold in the 1st edition but not in the 2nd edition. I think that this is probably no more than an editing oversight; it is hard to see that the force of the word has been downgraded in that instance. (Another, obvious failure of editing is the omission of the second bracket after “local community” in the penultimate bullet point in section 1.7.) Second, section 1.5 is largely similar in both editions but has been partially rewritten in the second edition. Third, in the first edition section 1.7 begins with this sentence:
“There is no presumption in favour or against the closure of any type of school.”
That has been removed in the second edition, as has some reference in the remainder of section 1.7 to the particular significance of certain factors in relation to rural schools. The reason for the alteration to section 1.7 is the introduction of a new section 1.8 in the second edition.[18]Because section 1.8 is directly and specifically applicable in the present case, I shall set nearly all of it. “1.8 Presumption against the closure of rural schools This second edition of the Code makes special arrangements in regard to rural schools establishing a procedural presumption against their closure. This requires proposers to follow a more detailed set of procedures and requirements in formulating a rural school closure proposal and in consulting on and reaching a decision as to whether to implement a rural school closure proposal. This does not mean that a rural school will never close but the case for closure must [sic] be strong and all viable alternatives to closure must have been conscientiously considered by the proposer, including federation. Designation of ‘rural school’ for the purposes of the presumption against closure A rural school for the purposes of the presumption against closure is identified using the Office for National Statistics’ rural and urban classification, as being located within villages in the sparsest context, other (hamlet or dispersed) in sparsest context and other (hamlet or dispersed) in less sparse context[.] … Specific further steps required to be taken by the proposer in formulating a rural school proposal As well as taking into account the factors in chapter 1 (paragraphs 1.3 to 1.6) which are relevant in the case of all proposals the proposer is required to follow the further steps below where the proposal relates to the possible closure of a rural school. Formulating the proposal Where the proposer is considering formulating a proposal to close a rural school, the proposer must clearly identify the reasons for formulating the proposal. This will be the key challenges which the school faces and the proposer wishes to address by proposing closure of the school. The proposer is required to consider these reasons when making their decision on a proposal or any reasonable alternatives, so it is important that they are as clear and specific as possible. For example, reasons might relate to a falling school roll, difficulties delivering the curriculum or concerns about the school building. Rather than simply stating that the school is no longer viable, the proposer should carefully consider and set out the reasons why it considers the school is no longer viable. Identifying reasonable alternatives The proposer must identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposal which might also address the reason for formulating the proposal. It is important to ensure that all reasonable alternatives identified are properly explored before the proposer decides to proceed to consult on closure. The aim is to ensure that when an option to close a rural school is proposed, the decision to consult on that option is only taken after very careful consideration, and after all other reasonable alternatives have been considered and a clear assessment undertaken of their merits and viability. Federation has been shown to have particular benefits for rural schools. Proposers must show how they have considered federation as an alternative to closure of a rural school. Schools are major public and community assets; it is important that their future is considered not just from an education perspective, but across the full range of a local authority’s responsibilities. Consideration of alternatives to closure could include whether there is scope for the school to be better integrated into a local authority’s wider asset management and community planning process. This could for example, include building effective links with local community regeneration strategies. Examples of alternatives to closure that might merit consideration include:• clustering, collaboration with other schools (taking account of the scope for use of ICT links between school sites);• Using the school as a ‘community hub’ to accommodate and support provision of a range of community services, e.g. health, childcare facilities, family and adult learning, community education, sport, recreation, social activity etc.• Whether is would be feasible and economical to co-locate local services within the school to offset the costs of maintaining the school);• Whether the establishment of multi-site schools might be considered as a means of retaining buildings: As with all closure proposals the proposer must prepare a community impact assessment to explore the overall and long term impact on people and the community of the closure of the rural school and the loss of the building as a community facility. Examples of what the proposer should consider as part of the Community Impact Assessment are included at Annex C. Once the proposer has identified all the reasonable alternatives, the proposer must assess for each alternative its ◦ likely impact on Quality and Standards in Education; ◦ likely impact on the community; and ◦ likely effect of different travelling arrangements. Preparing a proposal paper for the decision maker Before determining whether to proceed to consultation in accordance with chapter 3 of this code, the person(s) who determine whether or not a proposal should proceed to consultation must be presented with a paper (‘the proposal paper’) which, in addition to detailing the general factors in paragraphs 1.3 to 1.6 of Chapter 1 of this Code must also include: ◦ The reason for the closure proposal ◦ A list of the reasonable alternatives to closure that have been identified; and ◦ An assessment of the following for each of reasonable alternatives that has been identified: ◦ The likely impact on Quality and Standards in Education. ◦ The likely impact on the community. ◦ The likely effect of different travelling arrangements; The proposer should not make a decision as to whether to proceed to consultation until these preliminary requirements have been carried out and unless they are satisfied that implementation is the most appropriate response to address the key challenges identified as the reason for proposing discontinuance of the school. Although under the 2013 Act the requirement to consult does not apply to proposals to discontinue small schools with fewer than 10 pupils at the preceding January census point local authorities and governing bodies bringing forward such proposals should still take into account the factors set out in Chapter 1 of this Code when developing and considering proposals. If the school is on the list of ‘rural schools’ this includes satisfying the requirements set out in 1.8 ‘Presumption against the closure of rural schools’.” Designation of ‘rural school’ for the purposes of the presumption against closure Formulating the proposal Identifying reasonable alternatives• clustering, collaboration with other schools (taking account of the scope for use of ICT links between school sites);• Using the school as a ‘community hub’ to accommodate and support provision of a range of community services, e.g. health, childcare facilities, family and adult learning, community education, sport, recreation, social activity etc.• Whether is would be feasible and economical to co-locate local services within the school to offset the costs of maintaining the school);• Whether the establishment of multi-site schools might be considered as a means of retaining buildings: ◦ likely impact on Quality and Standards in Education; ◦ likely impact on the community; and ◦ likely effect of different travelling arrangements. ◦ The reason for the closure proposal ◦ A list of the reasonable alternatives to closure that have been identified; and ◦ An assessment of the following for each of reasonable alternatives that has been identified: ◦ The likely impact on Quality and Standards in Education. ◦ The likely impact on the community. ◦ The likely effect of different travelling arrangements;

Identifying reasonable alternatives

[19]Chapter 5 deals with “Determining proposals (other than proposals made by the Welsh Ministers)”. Relevant to the present case is section 5.4:
“5.4 Determination by proposers (section 53 of the 2013 Act) Where proposals do not require approval under section 50 and 51 of the 2013 Act they fall to be determined by the proposer. Under section 53 of the 2013 Act, determination by the proposer must be made within 16 weeks (112 days) of the end of the objection period. Where the proposer fails to determine the proposal within the period of 16 weeks it is taken to have withdrawn the proposal and it is required to republish the proposals if it wishes to proceed. Where a local authority’s proposals have received objections, and require determination under section 53 of the 2013 Act, the local authority must not approach the determination of these proposals with a closed mind. Objections must be conscientiously considered alongside the arguments in respect of the proposals and in the light of the factors set out in section 1.3 – 1.14 of this Code. In these cases the objection report must be published at the same time as the decision is issued rather than within 28 days beginning with the end of the objection period.”
[20]Section 5.6 provides in part:
“5.6 Decision notification Decisions (in relation to proposals which require approval or determination) must be made and issued in the form of a decision letter. The decision letter must set out clearly the reasons for the decision with reference to sections 1.3 to 1.6 of this Code and the specific factors in sections 1.7 to 1.14 [which includes the additional factors to be considered and requirements in relation to the closure of rural schools]. Additionally a decision letter for a proposal to discontinue a school designated as a rural school must state why the proposer is satisfied that such implementation is the most appropriate response to the reasons it identified for formulating the proposal. Decision letters must be published electronically on the proposer’s website (if it has one) and that of the relevant local authority (if different). The following must be advised by letter or email of the availability of the decision letter: …”
[21]Chapter 7, which deals with the closure of a school with fewer than 10 registered pupils, is also relevant to this case. It provides in part:
“7. The closure of a school with fewer than 10 registered pupils Where a school has fewer than 10 registered pupils (or there are no pupils remaining at a school) at the January census point the 2013 Act permits governing bodies/local authorities to undertake a streamlined procedure to bring about official closure. … The possible closure of such schools should be considered in the light of the factors set out at section 1. If the school is on the list of ‘rural schools’ this includes considering the factors and satisfying the requirements set out in section 1.8 ‘Presumption against the closure of rural schools’ before issuing a closure notice. This means that the proposer should also: • identify clear and specific reasons for formulating the proposal; • identify any reasonable alternatives to closure which might also address the reasons for the proposal and provide evidence to show that it has carefully considered all other viable options (including federation), with a clear assessment of the merits and their viability including:  The likely education benefits;  The likely impact on the community;  The likely impact on travelling arrangements; and • set out in the proposal paper (which is a paper to be presented to the decision maker) the alternatives that have been identified, give an assessment of these and explain why the proposer considers in the light of the assessment that implementation of the closure proposal would be the most appropriate response to the reasons for the proposal.” • identify clear and specific reasons for formulating the proposal; • identify any reasonable alternatives to closure which might also address the reasons for the proposal and provide evidence to show that it has carefully considered all other viable options (including federation), with a clear assessment of the merits and their viability including:  The likely education benefits;  The likely impact on the community;  The likely impact on travelling arrangements; and • set out in the proposal paper (which is a paper to be presented to the decision maker) the alternatives that have been identified, give an assessment of these and explain why the proposer considers in the light of the assessment that implementation of the closure proposal would be the most appropriate response to the reasons for the proposal.”

Equality Act 2010

[22]Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) came into force in Wales on 31 March 2021, so far as it applies to a relevant authority as defined by section 2(6) of the 2010 Act: The Equality Act 2010 (Commencement No.

(a) In its application to Wales, it provides in relevant part:

“1. Public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities (1) An authority to which this section applies must, when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. (2) In deciding how to fulfil a duty to which it is subject under subsection (1), an authority must take into account any guidance issued in accordance with subsection (2A).

(b) a county council or county borough council in Wales …”

[23]The Welsh Ministers published statutory guidance (“the Guidance”) pursuant to section 1(2A)(aa) of the 2010 Act on 9 April 2025.[24]The Guidance contains a number of definitions and explanations, of which the following are relevant. “Socio-economic disadvantage Definition: living in less favourable social and economic circumstances than others in the same society. Socio-economic disadvantage can be disproportionate in both communities of interest and communities of place, leading to further inequality of outcome, which can be further increased when considering intersectionality.” “Communities of place Those who share a geographical location, are described as ‘communities of place’. For example, these locations maybe where people reside, work, visit or otherwise spend a substantial portion of their time. Socio-economic disadvantage does not respect urban and rural boundaries …” “Inequalities of outcome Definition: inequality of outcome relates to any measurable difference in outcome between those who have experienced socio-economic disadvantage and the rest of the population. Public bodies should understand where they can have the greatest positive impact in reducing inequalities of outcome. …” “Socio-economic disadvantage• area deprivation• low/no wealth• socio-economic background• low/no income• material deprivation” “Due regard Definition: giving weight to a particular issue in proportion to its relevance. Due regard is an established legal concept in equalities and public law. The concept of due regard should be well understood by public bodies in relation to the Public Sector Equality Duty … It means giving weight to a particular issue in proportion to its relevance. The same principles apply to this Duty, giving due regard to reducing inequalities of outcome caused by socio-economic disadvantage.” Socio-economic disadvantage does not respect urban and rural boundaries …”• area deprivation• low/no wealth• socio-economic background• low/no income• material deprivation”[25]A section headed “Accessing evidence” begins:
“There are a range of ways in which public bodies can better understand inequalities of outcome and where they can have the greatest impact on reducing unequal outcomes as a result of socio-economic disadvantage. Public bodies will already have access to a wide range of quantitative and qualitative data, examples of high level data, which are routinely updated include …”
There then follow 15 bullet-points listing sources of data, after which is further text that I need not set out here.[26]A section headed “Demonstrating ‘Due regard’” reads in part:
“As with the Public Sector Equality Duty … an individual or group may bring judicial review proceedings against a public body which is covered by the Duty if they believe the public body has not considered socio-economic disadvantage when taking decisions of a strategic nature. To ensure that public bodies are able to provide evidence on how they are meeting their statutory requirements under the Duty, it is recommended they keep an audit trail for all relevant decisions made. … To improve the way that that socio-economic disadvantage is considered and to provide evidence that ‘due regard’ has been given, it is suggested that it is incorporated into existing processes. … Decision makers within public bodies must be satisfied that the body has understood the evidence and likely impact, and has considered whether the policy can be changed to reduce inequality of outcome as a result of socio-economic disadvantage. …”
[27]Under the heading “The Duty in practice”, the Guidance illustrates how public bodies may meet the Duty by reference to a 5-stage approach. “Stage 1: planning• Is the decision a strategic decision? Stage 2: evidence• What evidence do you have about socio-economic disadvantage and inequalities of outcome in relation to this decision?• Have you engaged with those affected by the decision?• Have you considered protected characteristics?• Have you considered both places and communities of interest? Stage 3: assessment and improvement• What are the main impacts of the proposal?• How can the proposal be improved so it reduces inequalities of outcome as a result of socio-economic disadvantage? Stage 4: strategic decision makers This stage is for decision makers to confirm that due regard has been given, for example executives and non-executive directors, board and committee members. They must be satisfied that the body has understood the evidence and likely impact, and has considered whether the policy can be changed to reduce inequality of outcome as a result of socio-economic disadvantage. Stage 5 This stage is the process of evidencing and recording how ‘due regard’ has been given. At this stage changes to the decision should be made and recorded.”• Is the decision a strategic decision?• What evidence do you have about socio-economic disadvantage and inequalities of outcome in relation to this decision?• Have you engaged with those affected by the decision?• Have you considered protected characteristics?• Have you considered both places and communities of interest?• What are the main impacts of the proposal?• How can the proposal be improved so it reduces inequalities of outcome as a result of socio-economic disadvantage? Stage 5 The Facts Background

The Facts

[28]The School is situated in the village of Llansteffan, in Carmarthenshire. It is a Welsh-medium, maintained primary school and is federated with Ysgol Llangain and Ysgol Bancyfelin; the three schools united under a single headteacher and governing body in September 2021. The School is approximately 4.4 miles by road from Ysgol Llangain, with a journey time of about 10 minutes.[29]In January 2025 there were eight pupils registered at the School, none of them in years 3 to 6, and they were taught in one class by a single teacher. Therefore, in view of the date of the Proposal referred to below, it was a “small school” within the meaning of section 56 of the 2013 Act. In January 2026, however, there were 16 pupils registered at the School, and they were taught in two classes by two teachers. Ysgol Llangain has a capacity of 64 in the academic year 2026-2027 and, at the time of the Objection Report referred to below, it was estimated that it would have 41 pupils on the roll in September 2026.[30]The evidence of Mr Allan Carter, the defendant’s Schools Transformation and Change Manager, is as follows:
“6. As pupil numbers declined in 2023-24, the school [viz. the School] experienced financial challenges and slipped into a deficit of £2,028 at the end of the 2024-25 financial year. There was an in-year overspend of £50,846 in financial year 2025-26 which led to a deficit of £52,874 on March 31st 2026. The budget share per pupil for Ysgol Llansteffan in financial year 2024-25 (15 pupils) was £11,391 compared to the average for the Authority of £5,036. In financial year 2025-26 (8 pupils), this was £18,545 (average £5,479) and in financial year 2026-27 it is £11,616 (average £5,972) based on the 16 pupils at the school at the time of the January 2026 schools census.”
[31]On 18 November 2024 the defendant’s Cabinet approved an updated Modernising Education Programme Strategy (“the MEP Strategy”). The MEP Strategy was guided by several strategic objectives:
“• To develop a schools’ network that is educationally effective, resource efficient and sustainable for the long term. • To develop a pattern of provision within which every learning setting can facilitate a high-quality education to all its learners, either as an individual institution or as part of a federation or collaboration with other settings or providers. • To create school environments that allow every child within every school to access a curriculum and experience teaching that motivates them to achieve their full potential, whilst also facilitating a programme of extra-curricular activities that stimulate their physical and emotional well-being. • To develop infrastructure at all schools that is equipped for learning in the 21st century, facilitating the realisation of core objectives for raising educational standards and sustaining them at high levels of performance. • To deliver a strategic approach to capital investment, integrated with a programme for the rationalisation of provision across the schools’ network to effectively match supply with demand. • To develop a sustainable and integrated school network that aligns with local and national transport policies, ensuring efficient access for students while balancing statutory requirements with affordability considerations. This includes optimising school locations, transport links, and active travel routes to support accessibility, environmental sustainability, and cost-effectiveness. • Aspire to rebuild, remodel, refurbish or modernise all school settings that are to be retained for the long-term, so that they conform as closely as practicable to adopted design standards. • To contribute to the achievement of wider policy objectives, for example, community regeneration and renewal, healthy lifestyles, etc., through the development of appropriate enabling infrastructure. • To improve the efficiency and educational viability of the schools’ sector by reducing the number of empty places to a reasonable level, whilst facilitating wherever practicable the expression of parental preference, responding effectively to demographic change. • To develop infrastructure at schools that is fully accessible to all persons and enables all learners to access a high-quality education, irrespective of individual needs. • To develop individual and collaborative school solutions that contribute to a county wide single comprehensive education system.”
[32]These strategic objectives are aligned to the following Primary Education Principles identified in the MEP Strategy:
“• Aspire to have sustainable leadership, with leaders who are free to lead and manage, without a permanent full-time teaching commitment. • Aspire to have no more than 2-year groups per teaching class. • Strive to maintain sufficient pupil numbers to support the above structural arrangements. • Be financially viable under the Local Management of Schools (LMS) funding framework and operate long-term without a budget deficit. • To have access to suitable outdoor teaching facilities to enhance learning and support physical well-being across the school. • Be fully inclusive and accessible for all. • Be equipped with modern facilities to support digital learning. • To create a high-quality learning environment that supports the well-being of all learners and enhances their progress and achievements across a wide range of skills and curriculum areas.”
[33]Mr Carter explains:
“12. In line with the strategic objectives and education principles, each school in Carmarthenshire can be evaluated against a set of evidence-based criteria, which allow an assessment of the school’s operational viability to be made, and decisions taken on the relative investment need of all schools. This allows the Authority to objectively determine a programme for the strategic review of the schools’ network and investment in the modernisation of the schools’ estate in a manner that is transparent and demonstrably fair. 13. As a result, each school is placed in a category within a viability continuum, to confirm a prognosis for that school. The summary of the viability assessment forms the basis for the identification of modernisation projects and rationalisation proposals within the overall programme. … 21. A Viability Assessment undertaken by the Local Authority in December 2024 (based on agreed, weighted criteria such as Quality and Standards, Leadership, Pupil Numbers, Projections, Financial Viability, Building Condition and Suitability etc.), identified Ysgol Llansteffan as the joint 3rd highest ranking school, in terms of challenges. Its closure was therefore considered, along with alternative options.”
[34]On 17 February 2025, following a public consultation on the defendant’s proposed budget, Cabinet met to consider its revenue budget strategy for the years 2025/2026, 2026/2027 and 2027/2028. In the budget strategy report, the Director of Corporate Services reported that, if schools’ budgets were to remain affordable, it would be necessary to make progress towards the modernisation and rationalisation of the defendant’s schools, which in turn would necessitate a reduction in the number of school sites. The budget strategy report was approved by Cabinet and, with some minor amendments, on 26 February 2025 by the full council.

The Proposal

[35]A proposal to close the School (“the Proposal”) was presented to the defendant’s Cabinet in a proposal paper (“the Proposal Paper”) on 17 November 2025. In view of the significance of the Proposal Paper, I shall refer to its contents at length.[36]The Proposal Paper noted that the Code classified the School as a rural school, which meant that there was a procedural presumption against its closure and that, before determining whether to proceed with a Statutory Notice pursuant to section 43 of the 2013 Act, Cabinet was required to receive a proposal paper setting out:(i) the reason for the closure proposal;(ii) a list of the reasonable alternatives to closure that were identified; and(iii) in respect of each such reasonable alternative, an assessment of (a) the likely impact on Quality and Standards in Education, (b) the likely impact on the community, and (c) the likely effect of different travelling arrangements. The Proposal Paper said:
“The County Council’s Cabinet should not make a decision as to whether to proceed to Statutory Notice until these preliminary requirements have been carried out and unless they are satisfied that implementation is the most appropriate response to address the key challenges identified as the reason for proposing discontinuance of the school.”
[37]The Proposal Paper recorded:
“Ysgol Llansteffan is a Welsh Medium 4-11 rural primary school situated in the village of Llansteffan. The school was placed into a Formal Federation with Ysgol Llangain and Ysgol Bancyfelin on 1 September, 2021. The school is managed by a Headteacher, who is also the Headteacher for the other two schools in the Federation. Currently the pupils from all four year groups are taught within one class. There are no pupils in years 3 to 6 at the school currently. … Ysgol Llansteffan has been identified for review following a Viability Assessment of all Primary Schools. The school was assessed against the Viability Criteria set out in the updated Modernising Education Programme (MEP) Strategy, as approved by Cabinet on 18 November 2024.”
A table of school information gave the following details. The total number of registered pupils was 8, comprising one in Nursery and 7 in Reception to Year 6. The number of registered pupils in previous years had been: 30 in April 2021; 33 in February 2022; 34 in January 2023; and 15 in January 2024. The projected number of pupils for January of each year were as follows: in 2026, 10; in 2027, 12; in 2028, 15; in 2029 18; in 2030, 18. (These figures were said to exclude Nursery pupils. However, a table at page 11 showed the same figures including Nursery pupils.) The current total capacity of the School was 62 (including 6 in Nursery). The cost per pupil was £11,391 in 2024/25 and £18,545 in 2025/26. The School Budget was £170,871 in 2024/25 and £148,357 in 2025/26.[38]The reasons for the Proposal were stated by reference to the Code and were in summary as follows:
“• Low pupil numbers. • Falling pupil roll. • High surplus places. • Low pupil projections going forward. • School budget issues. • Very high budget share per pupil. • Issues with delivery of the curriculum caused by low pupil numbers.”
[39]In respect of low pupil numbers, the Proposal Paper said:
“The Welsh Government defines a ‘small school’ as a school with less than 91 pupils. The school’s capacity of 62 pupils is significantly below the local authority’s average, and as a result, lower than average enrolment figures are to be expected. The school has been experiencing low pupil numbers for a significant amount of time and over the past seven years the number of pupils that attend Ysgol Llansteffan has been following a general decreasing trend. In April 2021 there were 30 pupils, which had risen to 34 pupils by January 2023. However, by January 2025 this had decreased to 8 pupils leaving 87.1% surplus places at the school. Pupil forecasts suggest a slight improvement in the situation indicating by 2030 there will be 18 pupils at the school (not including nursery), resulting in 52.6% surplus places. (The surplus percentage appears lower as the capacity of the school will have been reduced from 62 to 38 by this time).”
[40]In respect of School Budget pressures, the Proposal Paper said that the low pupil numbers had “contributed to budgetary pressures resulting in the school being in deficit for a number of years.” The deficit had peaked in 2022/23 at £43,215; in 2023/24 it was £27,725; in 2024/25 it was £2,028. The School funding for 2025/26 was £148,357, representing funding per pupil of £18,545 on the basis of the number of pupils on the roll in January 2025. This was 238% higher than the county’s primary school average mainstream funding per pupil of £5,480. The forecast budget deficit for March 2026 was £25,289. The Proposal Paper recorded:
“Due to low pupil numbers, during 2025-26 the school received a £74,000 pupil number supplement as well as a £12,000 federation supplement. The pupil number supplement is based on a formula identifying various school sizes where their pupil numbers put them at a disadvantage in comparison to other schools. The supplement provides an equitable percentage of funding across identified key costs. The federation supplement is an additional payment the school receives for being part of a formal federation.”
[41]The Proposal Paper identified seven reasonable alternatives as options: 1) Option 1—retain the status quo; 2) Option 2—utilise Subject Specialism across the Federation; 3) Option 3—develop the School as a Multi-Purpose Shared Facility; 4) Option 4—Outdoor Learning and Environmental Engagement; 5) Option 5—change the age-range of the School from 4-11 to 3-11; 6) Option 6—close the School and transfer pupils to their nearest school; 7) Option 7—close the School and transfer pupils to Ysgol Llangain; though the Proposal Paper emphasised that parents retained the right to express a preference for any school they wished their child to attend. (Options 2, 3 and 4 were the result of engagement with the headteacher and Governing Body of the School prior to publication of the Proposal.) The Proposal Paper went on to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those options, in each case addressing the likely impact on quality and standards in education, the likely impact on the community, and the likely effect of different travel arrangements. In the case of Options 1 to 5, one of the reasons for discounting the option was that it would not address the budget deficit at the School.[42]Option 7 was identified as the preferred option, for the following reasons:
“• It would address low pupil numbers at the school. • It would address high surplus places at the school. • It would address the budget issues at the school. • It would address high cost per pupil at the school. • It would address the issues being experienced in relation to the delivery of the curriculum. • It would ensure that the cohort of pupils remain together which could mitigate against any negative impacts of the transition to the receiving school.”
[43]The Proposal Paper contained further analysis of the impact of Option 7 by reference to factors mentioned in the Code. In respect of the impact of the Proposal on vulnerable groups, the Proposal Paper stated:
“Currently, 12.5% of pupils at Ysgol Llansteffan are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), which indicates they could be at an economic disadvantage. If the school closes, these students would need to move to another school, which could be challenging for families with fewer resources. Any negative effects from the closure could be reduced by providing school transport in line with the School Transport Policy, holding transition meetings and offering support from the staff at Ysgol Llangain before and after the move.”
[44]Another relevant factor that the Proposal Paper considered by reference to the Code was, “Whether alternative school-based provision will have sufficient capacity and provide accommodation of at least equivalent quality for existing and projected pupil numbers”. It noted that Ysgol Llangain had a total capacity of 62 for the academic year 2026/27, with an admission number of 7. On the basis of the pupil projections for the School and for Ysgol Llangain, and on the assumption that all pupils who would otherwise have gone to the School went instead to Ysgol Llangain, the projection for total pupil numbers in Ysgol Llangain were: in 2027, 60; in 2028, 67; in 2029, 71; in 2030, 72. On the stated assumption, this “demonstrate[d] that Ysgol Llangain would not have sufficient capacity for existing and projected pupil numbers of both schools combined.” Further:
“should the proposal proceed and all pupils choose to transfer from Ysgol Llansteffan to Ysgol Llangain, it would create issues at the receiving school where the Admission Number of 7 would be exceeded in two year groups [viz. Year 1 and Year 2].”
The Proposal Paper addressed these concerns in the following way. “If the proposal to close the school is approved, the Local Authority will work closely with the receiving school and its Governing Body to support a smooth transition for all pupils who wish to transfer. It is recognised that if all, or most, pupils choose to move to the proposed receiving school, the number of pupils may temporarily exceed the school’s current admission number / capacity. Should this occur, the Local Authority will process any applications in accordance with its School Admissions Policy and the Welsh Government’s School Admissions Code. The Local Authority is committed to ensuring that sufficient provision is available for all pupils, and will invest in additional accommodation or resources if necessary. Any new facilities provided would meet or exceed the quality of the current school’s environment. Although a specific alternative school is proposed as part of this consultation, families retain the right to express a preference for any school. Parents may choose a different school for their child, … and this could affect the projected pupil numbers included in this document. As a result, the overall availability of places across schools may differ from what is currently anticipated. It is also important to note that the method used to project pupil numbers is based on a rolling average of pupils aged 5 to 8 in primary schools. This means that any sudden changes in pupil numbers may take several years to be fully reflected in the data. In schools with smaller numbers of pupils, even minor changes can have a proportionally larger impact on projections. Therefore, the pupil forecasts presented here should be viewed as estimates rather than exact figures.”[45]The Proposal Paper addressed further factors mentioned in the Code as relevant to finance. “• The recurrent costs of proposals over a period of at least 3 years and whether the necessary recurrent funding is available The recurrent costs of this proposal would be the increased transport costs, which are currently estimated to be an additional £50,000 per annum.• Additional transport costs incurred as a result of proposals Should the proposal proceed, the transport costs associated with the implementation of the proposal are estimated to be £50,000 per annum. based on current prices and pupils’ current location and assuming the pupils transfer to Ysgol Llangain.• The capital costs of proposals and whether the necessary capital funding is available Should the proposal proceed, it is not envisaged that there will be capital costs at this stage. However, capital will be made available should it be required. …• The scale of any projected net savings (taking into account school revenue, transport and capital costs) It is estimated that the annual revenue savings to the Council will be approximately £112,399. This figure comprises savings from the school’s delegated budget in 2025-26 provided in the form of supplements for non-domestic rates, premises costs and a pupil number supplement to support schools with low numbers (and federation supplement for Llansteffan). In reality, the total estimated annual revenue savings will be approximately £62,399 due to the anticipated transport costs of £50,000. As the majority of funding for schools is calculated on pupil numbers, all pupil number funding goes with each child to their alternative school, thus supporting the budgets of other schools. For Ysgol Llansteffan, the total figure moving to other schools in 2025-26 would be £35,958. In addition, there are other savings to the Council from the reduction in central support services provided to schools such as Human Resources, Education and ALN Support, IT, Music Service, cleaning, property maintenance, grounds maintenance and catering. The savings proposals approved by the Council on 24 February 2025 included a recommendation for the Schools Service to review the future viability of the school estate. …• Whether any savings in recurrent costs will be retained in the local authority’s local schools’ budget Any savings realised shall be made available for reinvestment in accordance with the County Council’s corporate budget process, with any allocation towards the school system subject to approval as part of the annual budget planning cycle.”[46]Under “Other general factors” the Proposal Paper discussed matters relevant to the public socio-economic duty. “The School Organisation Code (2018) requires the County Council to take into account the following points in relation to other general factors:• Impact of the proposal on educational attainment among children from economically deprived backgrounds The proposal if implemented would not likely have a negative impact on vulnerable groups of learners including those from economically deprived backgrounds or learners with additional learning needs as staff know each other well, and currently work as one team. …• Equality issues, including those identified through equality impact assessments Equalities issues have been considered as part of the draft Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA). The proposal would present both positive and negative impacts on Equalities. For example according to PLASC 2025 data,12.5% of pupils in Ysgol Llansteffan are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), indicating that the proposal may impact learners from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those with protected characteristics, who would be required to transition to an alternative school.”[47]Appendix A to the Proposal Paper was a Community Impact Assessment. The following extracts will suffice. “11. Impact on health and wellbeing e.g. if pupils would be less able to walk or cycle to school: As a result of the proposed school closure, pupils may be less able to walk or cycle to the Ysgol Llangain due to increased distance and road safety concerns. This may reduce opportunities for daily physical activity, which could have a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of some pupils. However, pupils will have the opportunity to take regular part in physical education activities. Key Stage 2 pupils take swimming lessons and there are also opportunities to take part in competitions such as Cross Country, Athletics, Rugby, Football, Netball, Decathlon and more activities. … 13. Additional considerations for rural schools …• Whether or not the loss of the school, and potential families, will have a detrimental effect on the wider economy of the community: The closure of Ysgol Llansteffan could have a detrimental effect on the wider economy of the community for several reasons: schools are often seen as anchors in rural communities; loss of families; the local economy may depend on a mix of local trade in addition to tourists; the loss of a school may make the area less attractive to families. These factors could contribute to decline in the wider economy of the area. … Conclusion Based on the current proposal to close Ysgol Llansteffan, it is anticipated that there will be minimal impact on the community.”

Conclusion

[48]At the meeting of Cabinet on 17 November 2025 the Proposal Paper was presented by the Cabinet Member for Education, Councillor John Clynog Davies. The minutes record:
“In order to address concerns raised regarding the new housing developments in Llansteffan and Llangain potentially affecting pupil numbers at local schools. It was reported, that currently, there had been no new applications for places at Ysgol Llansteffan and only one at Ysgol Llangain, with one pupil from the Llansteffan development registered already at Ysgol Llangain. It was emphasised that parental choice determined applications, so any impact remained hypothetical. Ysgol Llangain has capacity for 64 pupils but currently has 40, with 42 expected in January 2026, meaning it could easily accommodate any pupils displaced by a possible closure of Ysgol Llansteffan. The number of children in Llansteffan has recently increased from 8 to 14. It was reported that each January, the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) figures are collected, which enabled analysis of trends over time. This data is used to forecast future demand and informs decisions about opening or closing schools. The PLASC figures offer a comprehensive, evidence-based overview of the education sector.”
Cabinet unanimously resolved to proceed with the Statutory Notice in respect of the School.[49]The Statutory Notice was given on 25 November 2025. It stated:
“Ysgol Llangain is a language category 3, Welsh medium community primary school. It will not be necessary to take any other measures to increase the number of school places. Transport will be provided in accordance with Carmarthenshire County Council’s School Transport Policy. Transfer to secondary school will remain as per current arrangements. The implementation of the proposal to discontinue Ysgol Llansteffan is seen as the most appropriate response to address the reasons identified in formulating the proposal due to the following factors: • There are significant surplus places at Ysgol Llansteffan due to the falling roll over a number of years and only 8 pupils registered at the school at the January 2025 census point. • Pupil projections remain low for the school. • The school is currently in a deficit budget. • The school’s budget share per pupil is £18,545. This is £13,065 or 238% higher than the Carmarthenshire County Council primary school average of £5,480 for 2025-26. • Have a positive impact on reducing the surplus places at Ysgol Llangain. • Supports Carmarthenshire County Council’s Primary Education Footprint Principles.”

The Objection Report

[50]During the objection period following the Statutory Notice, the defendant received 201 observations in relation to the proposal, of which 198 were objections and three were supportive. The defendant collated and discussed the objections in an Objection Report, where they were summarised under 14 heads; these included the adverse impact of closure on the community, on the Welsh language, on the environment, and on pupil wellbeing and the learning experience, as well as challenges to the Proposal’s case in respect of financial savings.[51]In respect of capacity and class sizes at Ysgol Llangain, the Objection Report summarised the objections thus:
“Respondents noted inconsistencies in whether there is appropriate capacity in Ysgol Llangain to receive all the pupils from Ysgol Llansteffan. Respondents also noted contradictions in education principles in terms of pupils moving from mixed aged classes in Ysgol Llansteffan to mixed aged classes in Ysgol Llangain. This contradicts the Local Authority’s aspirations of no more than two age groups per class.”
The defendant’s response was as follows:
“Ysgol Llangain currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate pupils from Ysgol Llansteffan in addition to those already on roll at Ysgol Llangain and does not currently require additional accommodation. Based on the most recent and updated capacity calculations, Ysgol Llangain’s capacity for the 26/27 academic year is 64 with an estimated 41 pupils on roll in September 2026. We acknowledge that Ysgol Llansteffan and Ysgol Llangain have the same complement of classrooms/provision in terms of class structure. Class-structure modelling for Ysgol Llangain has been completed. It is unlikely there will be a need to change the existing class structure or staffing as pupils from Ysgol Llansteffan can be accommodated within Ysgol Llangain’s current class structure.”
[52]In respect of the impact of the Proposal on travel and transport, the objections were summarised thus:
“Respondents noted that whilst pupils currently have the opportunity to walk to Ysgol Llansteffan, this would no longer be available if the school was to close as there are no safe routes to school available between Llansteffan and Llangain. Respondents also noted the direct impact on transport, with transport being required due to no safe walking routes to school being available and the distance between the villages. Some respondents also noted that they would not be happy in sending younger pupils to school via school transport.”
The defendant’s lengthy response on this point included the following text:
“Ysgol Llansteffan is located approximately 4.3 miles from Ysgol Llangain. 13 children currently walk to school. The Local Authority acknowledges that travel arrangements for pupils are likely to be impacted, however, free transport will be provided for eligible pupils in line with Carmarthenshire County Council’s transport policy. The proposal may impact parents who have pupils not eligible for free transport and may also have to travel further. At present, there are no designated Active Travel routes connecting Llansteffan and Llangain that meet the requirements of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. The highways between the two communities consist of narrow rural lanes with limited or no pavements, constrained visibility, and vehicle speeds that would not be considered safe for unaccompanied or young pupils. These characteristics make the route unsuitable for walking or cycling, particularly for primary aged children.”
[53]In response to an objection that the defendant had failed to take into account the potential impact of new housing estates in the area, the defendant set out some analysis of figures and concluded:
“The Most recent Capacity Calculations (26/27) shows room for 64 pupils. Currently there are 45 pupils on roll in the school split into two classes, one of 25 and one of 20, with numbers expected to drop in September 2026 due to the large year 6 cohort. Therefore, from an admissions perspective we do not believe there to be any prejudice as defined by the Admissions Code from admitting further pupils into the school, even into the full year groups.”
[54]An objection based on what were said to be outdated data and on rising pupil numbers was summarised as follows:
“Respondents noted that outdated data had been used in the preparation of the proposal paper and no consideration had been given to the rising pupil numbers at the school.”
The response was:
“PLASC data provides a consistent, comprehensive, and standardised dataset across all schools in Wales. PLASC is collected annually from every maintained school in Wales, ensuring a uniform and up-to-date snapshot of pupil numbers, demographics, and school characteristics. This consistency allows for accurate comparisons and trend analysis across schools and local authorities. The Welsh Government and Estyn use PLASC data as a baseline for funding allocations, performance monitoring, and strategic planning. Using the same dataset in local authority reports ensures alignment with national policy frameworks and avoids discrepancies. PLASC is an official data source subject to rigorous validation processes. Its use in formal reporting supports transparency and accountability, particularly when justifying decisions around school organisation, funding, or educational outcomes. Referring to a single, recognised data source, such as PLASC, creates clarity and ensures that all stakeholders, schools, parents, inspectors, and policymakers are working from the same evidence base. The decision to follow the streamlined process was made on this basis. The Local Authority acknowledges the rise in pupil numbers since PLASC 2025 and the preparation of the proposal paper. As of January 20th 2026, there are currently 16 pupils on roll at Ysgol Llansteffan. However, whilst there has been an increase in pupil numbers, these numbers remain very low and will continue to impact on the long-term sustainability of the school.”
[55]The objections in respect of the supposed financial savings were summarised as follows:
“Respondents noted that the anticipated savings from closing the school would be relatively low when considering the anticipated transport costs. It was noted that this does not seem in proportion with the impact of the community losing a valuable asset.”
The response in full was this: “The overall budget delegated to the Authority’s schools is under significant pressure. A combination of increasingly challenging budget settlements at national and local levels and steadily falling pupil rolls over recent years has meant that the current footprint of 94 primary schools, many of which have very small pupil numbers is unsustainable. A large number of the Authority’s schools is either in deficit or forecast to go into deficit within the next two years and the overall schools budget is forecasting a shortfall of £9.2m in March 2026. There is a significant number of surplus places in schools across the entire network. As school funding is largely governed by pupil numbers, reducing the footprint to a level at which a smaller number of schools are able to manage their budgets efficiently has become a corporate priority. This has been endorsed by several external bodies: • Estyn (2023) has stated that delays in decision-making, including following formal consultations, have meant that the authority has not addressed its plans to re-organise and modernise education in full. • WLGA Peer Review (2025) stated that the authority should implement the ‘Modernising Education Programme’ to address issues of excessive capacity and optimise the overall footprint of the school estate. This programme should inform capital programme investment and decisions on the ‘sustainable communities for learning programme.’ It also stated that the authority must take action to address the number of school budget deficits. (Peer review 2025) The anticipated annual revenue savings from the proposal to close Ysgol Llansteffan would be approximately £112,399, consisting of: NDR (Rates): £2,215; Premises Supplement: £24,184; Pupil Number Supplement: £74,000; Federation Supplement: £12,000. In addition, there are other savings to the Council from the reduction in central support services provided to school such as Human Resources, Education and ALN Support, IT, Music Service, cleaning, grounds maintenance and catering. There are also savings to be made in terms of ongoing property maintenance for ageing buildings within the school estate, including Ysgol Llansteffan. However, if approved, the school closure, could lead to £35,958 (based on 8 pupils) being transferred to Ysgol Llangain or any other school to which parents wish to send their children as per pupil funding. The financial case remains valid even if further investment in Ysgol Llangain becomes necessary in the future. This is because the consolidation of pupils into Ysgol Llangain will strengthen its financial position, and that of the federation by increasing its cohort size, which in turn enhances funding linked to pupil numbers. This approach ensures better long-term sustainability. Should the proposals proceed, and implementation agreed, the Local Authority would gain a redundant school building within its estate. If there is no corporate or community interest in retaining the building as per the ‘Future Use/Disposal of Redundant Land and Buildings policy, then the buildings would be placed on the open market and could generate an estimated capital receipt of approximately £250,000.” • Estyn (2023) has stated that delays in decision-making, including following formal consultations, have meant that the authority has not addressed its plans to re-organise and modernise education in full. • WLGA Peer Review (2025) stated that the authority should implement the ‘Modernising Education Programme’ to address issues of excessive capacity and optimise the overall footprint of the school estate. This programme should inform capital programme investment and decisions on the ‘sustainable communities for learning programme.’ It also stated that the authority must take action to address the number of school budget deficits. (Peer review 2025) NDR (Rates): £2,215; Premises Supplement: £24,184; Pupil Number Supplement: £74,000; Federation Supplement: £12,000.[56]The Objection Report identified and discussed several further alternatives that had not been mentioned in the Proposal Paper but had been proposed by objectors.[57]Annexed to the Objection Report was an updated Community Impact Assessment. Section 1 showed that in 2025 of the 8 pupils at the School 6 were from within the catchment area and 2 were from outside the catchment area, and that 46 pupils from within the catchment area attended other schools. Section 13 addressed additional considerations for rural schools, including demographics, impact on other activities at the School premises, and detrimental effect on the local economy and on local services. The Conclusion was as follows:
“The Local Authority recognises that there is a strong desire within the community for the school to remain open. Many stakeholders have expressed concerns that closure could have negative social, cultural, and economic impact on the local area, including the loss of the heart of the community, reduced opportunities for children to learn within their own locality, and broader effects on community cohesion. These views have been acknowledged by the Local Authority and reflected in the updated community impact assessment and this conclusion. The views will be fully taken into account when a final decision is made on the proposal.”

The Decision

[58]The Objection Report came before Cabinet on 23 February 2026. The record in the minutes reads as follows. “The Cabinet received the objection report on the closing of Ysgol Llansteffan following the statutory notice period. This formed part of the authority’s Modernising Education Programme (MEP) strategy. The Cabinet Member for Education introduced the report and advised that there was a need to respond to challenging circumstances facing the school and act in line with the MEP strategy and the School Organisation Code (2018). The Cabinet Member set out the process by which, as part of the MEP strategy, a Viability Assessment of all Primary Schools took place. After considering this assessment and the Stage 0 shaping discussion with the school, a report went to Cabinet on 17th November 2025, and it was agreed then to proceed with the Statutory Notice on Ysgol Llansteffan. It was noted that due to the number of pupils attending the school being fewer than 10 at the January 2025 census point, the Local Authority was able to undertake a streamlined procedure, progressing straight to the publication of a statutory notice. The Cabinet Member noted that this report recommended the closure as set out in the Statutory Notice and that the catchment be redesignated to Ysgol Llangain. It was noted that the main challenges for the school were: - Extremely low pupil numbers. - High surplus places. - High number of pupils living within catchment attending other schools. - Pupil projections suggesting that there was little likelihood of pupil numbers increasing dramatically over the next few years. - Projected deficit budget at the end of this financial year. The Cabinet Member advised that a total of 201 submissions were received in respect of the statutory notice, which consisted of 3 supportive comments and 198 objections. He noted some of the main objections and the comprehensive response to them provided in the report. One of these was the school’s status at the heart of the community, and it was noted that while it was encouraged for schools to be of use to the wider community, it was not a statutory consideration when it comes to closure. Another was the impact of extra pupils on Ysgol Llangain, and it was noted that the report showed the school had sufficient capacity to accommodate pupils from Ysgol Llansteffan. Others included the impact on active travel, Welsh Language in the community and new housing at Llansteffan. It was specifically noted that the children who had recently moved into newly built houses formed part of the figures in the report, and that only three of these had applied to Llansteffan, all of whom were already on roll at Ysgol Llangain. The Cabinet discussed the report and acknowledged that the decision to proceed with closure wasn’t an easy one to make and had not been done lightly. It was emphasised that the Local Authority had followed the correct process and carefully considered all the objections received. It was also noted the importance of allocating resources fairly across the county, which contributed to difficult decisions having to be made. It was emphasised that the final decision had not been made and that Council would have the opportunity to do so on the 4th March 2026.” Cabinet unanimously resolved to recommend that the Council implement the Proposal. - Extremely low pupil numbers. - High surplus places. - High number of pupils living within catchment attending other schools. - Pupil projections suggesting that there was little likelihood of pupil numbers increasing dramatically over the next few years. - Projected deficit budget at the end of this financial year.[59]The Objection Report came before the full council (“the Council”) on 4 March 2026.[60]The Officer Report for Council outlined the background and the challenges faced by the School that had led to the Proposal. It shows that the Council, as the Cabinet before it, received the Proposal Paper, the Statutory Notice and the Objection Report. After recording the recommendation of Cabinet, it stated:
“In determining this proposal, Cabinet/Council will have regard to the factors in Chapter 1 of the School Organisation Code, including the presumption against rural school closure and the requirement (under the streamlined procedure) to ensure sufficient equivalent places and to enable remaining pupils to respond to the notice.”
[61]The Officer Report then referred to each area in respect of which there were implications associated with the Proposal. One area was “Legal”; the report stated:
“1. Legal The statutory notice was published in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures as noted and in line with the School Organisation Code 2018.”
I observe that this was simply confirmation to the Council that the legally required processes had been followed. It was not, and was clearly not intended to be, legal advice regarding the making of the decision. The next area considered was “Finance”; the report stated:
“2. Finance The school’s current financial position as well as forecasted budgets have been considered as part of the proposal papers. The school faces a projected deficit budget of nearly £26k at the end of this financial year. Revenue Should the proposal proceed, and implementation agreed, the anticipated annual revenue savings for the school would be £112,399 In addition, there are other savings to the Council from the reduction in central support services provided to school such as Human Resources, Education and ALN Support, IT, Music Service, cleaning, property maintenance, grounds maintenance and catering. If approved, as a result, a total of £35,958 would be transferred to the receiving school as per pupil funding. Capital Should the proposals proceed, and implementation agreed, the Local Authority would gain a redundant school building within its estate. If there is no corporate or community interest in retaining the building as per the ‘Future Use/Disposal of Redundant Land and Buildings policy, then the buildings would be placed on the open market and could generate a capital receipt of approximately £250,000.”
Revenue

Capital

[62]The Officer Report discussed the consideration of the Proposal by the Scrutiny Committee and noted, among other things, a concern that had been raised that, if all the pupils from the School transferred to Ysgol Llangain, the latter’s capacity would be exceeded.[63]The papers before the Council included the County Council Integrated Impact Assessment Report (February 2026 revision) (“the IIA”). This document was composed in sections addressing various areas of statutory obligation. Some, but not all, of these need to be mentioned here. The first had the following heading (all in bold type, not reproduced here):
“WELL-BEING OF FUTURE GENERATIONS (WALES) ACT FIVE WAYS OF WORKING (also known as the sustainable development principle. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 requires the Council to consider how any proposal improves the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales using the five ways of working as a baseline) The sustainable development principle is: ‘... the public body must act in a manner which seeks to ensure that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’”
The lengthy text under this section included the following:
“The proposal addresses the unsustainable status quo at Ysgol Llansteffan, which has very low and declining pupil numbers (8 pupils, 87% surplus places) and a budget deficit of £2,028 in 2024/2025 which is projected to grow to £25,289 by March 2026. The Local Authority acknowledges that pupil numbers have increased (16 pupils as of Janaury [sic] 2026) however, maintaining the school would still not be viable in the long term. By transferring pupils to Ysgol Llangain, the proposal will maintain educational outcomes by ensuring access to a broad curriculum, age-appropriate classes, supporting long-term educational success. It will support financial sustainability by reducing ongoing costs and preventing further deficit growth, enabling resources to be used more effectively across the county. Furthermore, the proposal future-proofs provision by aligning with the Modernising Education Programme (MEP) Strategy, which aims to create a sustainable school network equipped for 21st-century learning. The proposal prevents the situation from getting worse by tackling the ongoing challenges at Ysgol Llansteffan before they become irreversible. The school currently faces very low and declining pupil numbers, with only 8 pupils on roll and 87% surplus places, alongside a projected deficit budget in March 2026. Maintaining the status quo would lead to further financial instability. This proactive approach aligns with the Modernising Education Programme (MEP) Strategy, which aims to create a sustainable school network and avoid deterioration in educational standards and financial viability. … The proposal demonstrates integration by recognising the relationships and interdependencies between educational provision, financial sustainability, and cultural objectives. Closing Ysgol Llansteffan and transferring pupils to Ysgol Llangain aligns with Carmarthenshire’s Modernising Education Programme (MEP) Strategy, which seeks to create a sustainable school network that supports the Curriculum for Wales and Welsh Government priorities, including Cymraeg 2050. It also contributes to wider corporate objectives such as reducing surplus places, improving resource efficiency, and supporting socio- economic equality by ensuring pupils have access to high-quality education regardless of location. The proposal integrates with transport policy by providing free school transport for eligible pupils, and with community planning by considering the impact on local services such as the Ti a Fi group. This holistic approach ensures that decisions about education provision are not made in isolation but take account of economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being goals.”
[64]Also relevant is the section on the socio-economic duty, which was headed as follows (again, all in bold type):
“SOCIO-ECONOMIC DUTY (The Socio-Economic Duty requires us, when making strategic decisions, to consider how our decisions might help reduce the inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage. Inequality of outcome relates to any measurable differences in outcome between those who have experienced socio-economic disadvantage and the rest of the population. It also requires us to understand the views and needs of those impacted by the decision, particularly those who face economic disadvantage)”
. There then followed a number of “Requirements” and the responses to them. The first Requirement was, “What evidence do you have about socio-economic disadvantage and inequalities of outcome in relation to the decision?” The response was:
“PLASC data (2025) shows that 12.5% of pupils at Ysgol Llansteffan are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), indicating socio-economic disadvantage among some families. The proposal could impact these families due to changes in travel arrangements and school location. However, free home to school transport will be provided for eligible pupils, reducing financial burden.”
Another Requirement was, “Have you considered communities and places of interest?”. The response was:
“Yes. The Community Impact Assessment (Appendix A of the proposal) considers the effect on the village of Llansteffan. Community use of school is currently limited but is available for use. The school maintains positive links with the community and welcomes visitors from local organisations. Of the 52 pupils living within the catchment area, 46 attend other schools. The Community Impact assessment has also been updated as part of this process. A significant number of responses noted that the school is the heart of the community.”
Another Requirement was, “How could the proposal be improved so it reduces inequalities of outcome as a result of socio-economic disadvantage?” The response was:
“The proposal could be improved by providing additional support for families facing economic hardship, such as: Providing financial assistance for extracurricular activities at the receiving school. Monitoring the impact on FSM pupils and offering targeted wellbeing support during transition. The funding formula for schools includes a deprivation factor, which typically uses: Free School Meal (FSM) eligibility as a proxy for socio-economic disadvantage. Weighting applied per eligible pupil, so schools with higher FSM percentages receive more funding. This ensures resources are targeted to support pupils in areas of greatest need.”
Providing financial assistance for extracurricular activities at the receiving school. Monitoring the impact on FSM pupils and offering targeted wellbeing support during transition.[65]Further sections on such things as the Public Sector Equality Duty, the rights of the child, and the impact of the Proposal on the Welsh language and the environment need not be considered here, other to note that the impact of school transport was noted and discussed in a wider context.[66]The minutes of the Council’s meeting contain the following record. “Council received the objection report on the closing of Ysgol Llansteffan following the statutory notice period which had been considered by the Cabinet at its meeting held on the 23rd February 2026 … The Cabinet Member for Education referred to the Estyn Inspection of the Local Authority undertaken in 2023, the extended Estyn visit in 2025 and the WLGA Peer Review in 2025 which highlighted that the Authority had not addressed its plans to re-organise and modernise education in full in accordance with the Welsh Government Sustainable Communities for Learning Programme. Accordingly, the report put forth for consideration outlined the Modernising Education Programme (MEP) proposals in respect of Ysgol Llansteffan, which had been identified for review following a county-wide viability assessment of primary schools. The recommendation of the Cabinet was for Council to implement the proposal to discontinue Ysgol Llansteffan from 31 August 2026 and transfer pupils to Ysgol Llangain from 1st September 2026, as laid out in the Statutory Notice. In presenting the report, the Cabinet Member for Education highlighted the significant challenges faced by Ysgol Llansteffan; these included extremely low pupil numbers, high surplus places, a high proportion of pupils attending schools outside the catchment area, limited prospects for an increase in enrolment numbers, and a projected budget deficit at year end. The Cabinet Member for Education advised that the Authority had a responsibility to respond to the circumstances facing the school and act in line with the MEP strategy and the School Organisation Code (2018). The Council was appraised [sic] of the process followed to date, as detailed within the report and in accordance with both legislative requirements and council procedures. In this regard it was clarified that due to the number of pupils attending the school being fewer than 10 at the January 2025 Pupil Level Annual School Census (PASC) point, the Authority was able to undertake a streamlined procedure in line with the School Organisation Code 2018, progressing straight to the publication of a statutory notice. The Cabinet Member for Education referred to the appended Objection Report which summarised the feedback received from stakeholders, together with the Authority’s responses thereto. A total of 201 submissions had been received, comprising 3 supportive comments and 198 objections. The objections included concerns in respect of community impact, capacity at Llangain school, active travel and transport implications, data accuracy and the effect of the new housing development. The Cabinet Member for Education assured Council that the Authority had given careful consideration to the valuable feedback submitted and robust, evidence-based responses had been provided to address the concerns raised, as detailed within the report. In this regard it was acknowledged that consideration of a school closure was both difficult and emotive, however the Council had a duty to ensure that resources are allocated responsibly and fairly for the benefit of all pupils within the county.”[67]The Council resolved that the recommendation of Cabinet be adopted and the Proposal be approved. This is the Decision.[68]The Decision was communicated in a letter dated 5 March 2026 (“the Decision Letter”) and headed “Notification of County Council Decision—Proposal to discontinue Ysgol Llansteffan”. The Decision Letter read in part:
“This proposal was considered in accordance with the requirements of the School Organisation Code (2018) of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 and noted that 198 objections had been received in respect of the proposal during the statutory objection period. … In determining the proposal, the County Council took into account the following factors as outlined in the School Organisation Code 2018 as follows: Quality and standards in education The Local Authority’s view is that Ysgol Llangain would provide education for pupils which is of at least equivalent quality as that provided at Ysgol Llansteffan, so it is not anticipated that implementation of this proposal, would have a negative impact on standards and progress overall. It is important to note that Ysgol Llangain is part of the same federation with the same leadership. The Local Authority will work closely with the Headteacher and respective governing body to ensure a smooth transition to alternative schools. Need for places and the impact of accessibility of schools In approving this proposal, Carmarthenshire County Council has considered the sufficiency of places and the likely demand for places in the future. There is a high level of surplus places at Ysgol Llansteffan due to low pupil numbers. There are sufficient places at Ysgol Llangain to accommodate current and forecasted pupils which, in turn, will have a positive impact in reducing the surplus places at Ysgol Llangain. Resourcing of education In reaching this decision a number of factors have been taken into account, in particular the low pupil numbers and projections, the deficit budget and the high budget share per pupil. Presumption against the closure of a rural school The second edition of the Code (2018) makes special arrangements in regard to rural schools establishing a procedural presumption against their closure. Ysgol Llansteffan has been designated as a rural school which required the Local Authority to follow a more detailed set of procedures and requirements in formulating a rural school closure proposal. The implementation of the proposal to discontinue Ysgol Llansteffan is seen as the most appropriate response to address the reasons identified in formulating the proposal due to the following factors: • There are significant surplus places at Ysgol Llansteffan due to the falling roll over a number of years and only 8 pupils registered at the school at the January 2025 census point. The Local Authority acknowledges that this number has increased to 16 as of the January 2026 census point. • Pupil projections remain low for the school. • The school is currently in a deficit budget. • The school’s budget share per pupil is £18,545. This is £13,065 or 238% higher than the Carmarthenshire County Council primary school average of £5,480 for 2025-26. • Have a positive impact on reducing the surplus places at Ysgol Llangain. • Supports Carmarthenshire County Council’s Primary Education Footprint Principles.”
Quality and standards in education Need for places and the impact of accessibility of schools Resourcing of education Presumption against the closure of a rural school

The Claim

[69]The claimant advances three grounds in support of the claim for an order quashing the Decision: 1) The defendant unreasonably failed to update the financial justification for the Proposal, contrary to the School Organisation Code. 2) The defendant did not recognise that a strong case was required for closure of a rural school. 3) The defendant breached the socio-economic duty in section 1 of the 2010 Act.

Ground 1: failure to update financial justification

[70]As Mr Howells made clear, Ground 1 is a challenge on the basis of process irrationality/unreasonableness as explained by the Divisional Court (Leggatt LJ and Carr J) in R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin), [2019] 1 WLR 1649, at [98]:
“The second aspect of irrationality/unreasonableness is concerned with the process by which the decision was reached. A decision may be challenged on the basis that there is a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning which led to it for example, that significant reliance was placed on an irrelevant consideration, or that there was no evidence to support an important step in the reasoning, or that the reasoning involved a serious logical or methodological error. Factual error, although it has been recognised as a separate principle, can also be regarded as an example of flawed reasoning the test being whether a mistake as to a fact which was uncontentious and objectively verifiable played a material part in the decision-maker’s reasoning: see E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044.”
[71]Ground 1 is to the effect that the financial advantages of closure were repeatedly identified as a material factor (see the Proposal Paper, the Objections Report, the Officer Report and the Decision Letter) but the financial information that informed the Decision was materially misleading in several respects. The particulars of the allegation are set out in paragraphs 46 to 50 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds and I address them in turn.[72]The first complaint is set out in paragraphs 46 to 48 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds and is as follows.• The Proposal Paper estimated the annual revenue savings at approximately £62,399, representing savings of £112,399 from the School’s budget but offset by anticipated transport costs of £50,000. However, on the basis of 8 pupils moving to other schools, funding of £35,958 would be moved to other schools in 2025-2026.• By the time of the Objections Report, however, it was known that the pupil numbers, as at the last preceding January, were 16, not 8; therefore the pupil funding supplement would be doubled, from £35,958 to £71,916.• The Objections Report did not even mention transport costs in its response to objections based on savings.• “Once the transport costs (minimum £50,000 p.a., potentially £68,400 p.a.) and the increased pupil number supplement (transfer £71,916 p.a.) are taken into account (resulting in a combined total of between £121,916 - £140,316) there is no annual saving”: Statement of Facts and Grounds, paragraph 47(d).• Therefore the Decision was based on out-dated and misleading financial information.[73]This complaint seems to me to show the danger of formulating, and inviting the court to accept, counter-analyses on relatively complicated matters that have been considered by professionals and decision-makers who are likely to have greater understanding of the issues. The contention in paragraphs 46 to 47 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds that there were no annual savings rests on a misunderstanding, because the figures of £35,958 (for 8 pupils) and £71,916 (for 16 pupils) are irrelevant to annual savings. A funding figure is allocated to each pupil within the county education system. It is not a supplement. The figure of £35,958 represented a simple product of the funding per pupil formula and will be incurred wherever pupils are educated within the county. The savings of £112,399 mentioned in the Proposal Paper did not include or purport to include any savings in that regard. They were based on elements identified in the Proposal Paper: a £74,000 supplement to a school with low pupil numbers; a £12,000 federation supplement; supplements for non-domestic rates; and premises costs. The funding per pupil figure was not included, as it would obviously not be a saving if the pupils remained within schools within the county. The fact that the Objections Report does not mention the transport costs is of no importance, because the transport costs were in fact taken into account in the calculation of annual savings.[74]In his written and oral submissions, and in reliance on Mr Carter’s evidence, Mr Howells submitted that, as the supposed savings related in large part to supplements in the School’s budget that would then be redistributed across the county’s education network, there were in fact no savings at all. That is not a pleaded point, and as I have observed the reference to “supplements” rests on a misunderstanding. Further, the fact that money saved in respect of one thing will be spent on another thing would not mean that there were no relevant savings, even if the expenditure would be within the wider education budget.[75]Again, Mr Howells submitted that, as Mr Carter’s evidence shows that the budget for school transport is separate and distinct from the budget allocated for education and delegated to schools, the papers available to the Council ought to have explained that, far from achieving real savings, the Proposal would result in increased costs. This, too, is not a pleaded point, and in this case that is particularly significant, as neither the claimant or her lawyers nor the court is well placed to speculate on whether this point could actually have the least genuine relevance. I do not consider it wise to entertain unpleaded points that are made by developing a case in a rather ad hoc fashion. The witness statement of Councillor Davies makes the point that councillors are regularly informed of budgetary issues, and it is reasonable to suppose that they will know how different budgets are allocated within the defendant’s overall operations—or, at least, that they are likely to have better understanding than any lawyers in this case.[76]The complaint (if that is what it is) in paragraph 49 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds is:
“Further, the Code identifies the recurrent costs of the proposal over three years as a material consideration. The guidance in the Code should be followed unless there is good reason to depart from it.”
This does not identify any error. If it is meant to imply that the defendant did not take into account the recurrent costs as a material consideration, it is incorrect. The Proposal Paper, which was structured in accordance with the Code, addressed this at page 31, where increased transport costs are identified as recurrent costs (see paragraph 45 above).[77]The complaint in paragraph 50 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds is in these terms:
“50. Furthermore, as set out at §11 above, the proposal paper identified that capital investment in infrastructure at the alternative school may be required if the proposal was implemented. That was on the basis of 8 pupils transferring. Prior to the decision, neither the objections report nor the officer’s report for the meeting revisited this issue. That was a material failure. By the time of the decision, (1) it was known that the School’s 2026 PLASC was 16, (2) it was estimated that the September 2026 intake for Llangain would be 41, (3) it was estimated that an additional 11 pupils would join Llangain from the additional housing development. Full Council should have been advised in relation to the likelihood that Llangain would not have sufficient capacity in light of those three factors and that it was likely that capital investment would be required. That was a material omission and rendered the decision unreasonable on a Tameside basis.”
[78]The principal question in this connection is whether the defendant’s decision-making process reveals a material error of fact, or misunderstanding, or methodological flaw. In my judgment, it clearly does not. The increase in pupil numbers at the School, the estimated intakes and the capacity of Ysgol Llangain were all known. The Objections Report adverted to all these points and concluded that there was no prejudice as defined by the Admissions Code in admitting further pupils even into the full year groups and that the financial case for the Proposal remained valid even if further investment into Ysgol Llangain were required in the future. In his witness statement, Mr Carter observes that, if (contrary to expectations) Ysgol Llangain were to become oversubscribed for any reason, pupils would be admitted according to the defendant’s published admissions criteria and any who did not obtain a place at Ysgol Llangain would be provided with a place at another Welsh-medium school and with transport in accordance with the defendant’s policy. Further, it is not to be forgotten that the Proposal Paper itself indicated that, if additional accommodation or resources proved to be necessary, they would be provided, and that the Proposal was expected to result in the realisation of approximately £250,000 from the sale of the School premises. In addition, the evidence is that this issue was specifically considered by the Council. Councillor Davies states in respect of his address to the Council:
“I confirmed, again, that Llangain had sufficient capacity to provide for the pupils currently at Llansteffan, with no requirement for additional buildings or classrooms. Officers had visited the school to ascertain this, and the capacity at Llangain was 64. I also noted the concern raised by many objectors, that there was new housing being built in the locality. I was able to assure the Full Council that there was sufficient capacity at Llangain: some families with children had moved into those new houses, with 12 children aged between 3 and 11 and 4 children aged under 3. Of those children, three had applied to attend Ysgol Llangain, and they were accounted for in the capacity analysis.”
[79]In my judgment, and despite the usual skill with which Mr Howells presented this ground, it is not reasonably arguable and permission should be refused.

Ground 2: failure to appreciate the need for a “strong case” for closure

[80]The claimant’s argument is to the following effect. Section 38 of the 2013 Act imposed on the defendant an obligation to act in accordance with any relevant requirements in the Code and to have regard to any relevant guidelines in the Code. Chapter 7 of the Code provides that the possible closure of small schools “should be considered in the light of the factors set out at section 1” and that in the case of a rural school “this includes considering the factors and satisfying the requirements set out in section 1.8 ‘Presumption against the closure of rural schools’ before issuing a closure notice” (see paragraph 20 above). Section 1.8 provides that in the case of a rural school “the case for closure must be strong” (see paragraph 17 above). The need for a “strong” case is a requirement amounting to a statutory obligation under section 38. Alternatively, even if it is only guidance, a reasoned justification is necessary before the defendant can depart from it: see R (McCann) v Bridgend County Borough Council [2014] EWHC 4335 (Admin), at [20]. At no point does any of the defendant’s documentation advert to the need for a strong case for closure. The only reference to a standard of justification is in the Proposal Paper, which (correctly) refers to the need to be satisfied that closure is “the most appropriate response” before proceeding to a Statutory Notice (see paragraph 36 above, and for the reference in the Code paragraph 17 above). There is no evidence that the Council was ever advised of the need for a strong case or ever appreciated that that was the necessary standard. The documentation indicates, on the contrary, that the presumption against closure of rural schools was viewed as having procedural, not substantive, consequences. The result is that the defendant misdirected itself in law.[81]There is an initial question as to the status of the reference to a “strong case” in section 1.8 of the Code. It is clear from the Summary section of the Code (see paragraph 14 above) that requirements for the purposes of section 38(4)(a) of the 2013 Act are to be shown by “must” or “must not” (that is, in bold type), and guidelines for the purposes of section 38(4)(b) are to be shown by “should” (again, in bold type). However, section 1.8 of the Code contains only two instances of “must” (both under the heading “Identifying reasonable alternatives”) and none of “should”. And in the statement that the case for closure “must be strong” there is no bold type. The question is whether the statement that “the case for closure must be strong” is a requirement for the purposes of section 38(4)(a) even though “must” is not in bold type. In my judgment, it is properly to be interpreted as such a requirement. The absence of bold type, here and elsewhere in section 1.8, is simply an editing failure. There are several reasons for this conclusion. First, the opening lines of section 1.8 state that the presumption against the closure of rural schools “requires” proposers to follow a more detailed set of procedures “and requirements”. Second, under the sub-heading, “Specific further steps required to be taken etc”, it is stated that the proper is “required” to follow the further steps set out below. One of those requirements is that the proposer “must” clearly identify the reasons for the proposal: “must” is there a requirement, though not in bold type. Similarly, the proposer “must” identify reasonably alternatives; this again is a requirement, though again it is not in bold type. Third, by contrast, the requirement that proposers “must show how they have considered federation as an alternative” does use bold type, but there is no sensible reason for elevating that requirement over the requirements to identify reasons and alternatives. It looks as though all that has happened is that the printing of the document has failed to use bold type where it ought to have been used. Fourth, Mr Howells’ efforts have identified only three other instances of the use of “must” without bold type: two are in section 3.4 of the Code, in respect of Consultation, and the second of these—on page 34 of the Code—is itself in a passage governed by a preceding “must” (it is arguable that the first, on page 34, is also so governed); and the third is in paragraph 5.6 (see paragraph 20 above) and relates to the new provisions for rural schools. (A fourth instance, in a flow-chart in Annex A to the Code, seems to me to stand on a different footing.) The paucity of such instances tends to confirm that the problem is one of typesetting and not of substance. Fifth, Chapter 7 of the Code (paragraph 21 above) refers to “satisfying the requirements set out in section 1.8”, which makes little sense if section 1.8 is read as containing requirements only where bold type is used.[82]This conclusion, reached as a matter of interpretation of the second edition of the Code, gains some support from the third edition of the Code, which was issued in March 2026 and came into force on 30 March 2026, shortly after the Decision, and to which my attention was drawn after the hearing. What was section 1.8 in the second edition has been replaced by paragraphs 1.28 to 1.43 in the third edition. The new text makes use of bold type for “must” and “should”. Paragraph 1.28 provides:
“1.28 The Code makes special arrangements in regard to rural schools in respect of a procedural presumption against their closure. This requires proposers to follow a more detailed set of procedures and requirements in formulating a rural school closure proposal and in consulting on and reaching a decision as to whether to implement a rural school closure proposal. This does not mean that a rural school will never close but the case for closure must be strong and all viable alternatives to closure must have been conscientiously considered by the proposer, including federation.”
[83]However, despite this conclusion on the construction of section 1.8, I regard Ground 2 as being without merit. Mr Prys Lewis dismissed it as “something and nothing” and, as I regard it as a purely verbal point lacking in any substance, I agree.[84]In R (Rhieni Dros Addysg Gymraeg) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2674 (Admin), Kerr J said of the Code at [105]:
“The Code is a normative document, creating obligations given statutory force by the 2013 Act; but it is not itself a statute. It is intended to be operated by education professionals rather than by lawyers. It should be construed in a common sense and not unduly legalistic way.”
[85]The interpretation of the Code is a matter for the court. In the abstract, the requirement for a “strong” case can tell one nothing. How strong is strong? (How long is a piece of string?) The meaning of the requirement for a “strong” case has to be understood from the context in which the word is employed and any use that is made of it. The starting point is that section 1.8 establishes a procedural presumption against closure of rural schools, whereas there is no such presumption in other cases. The presumption imposes obligations (in addition to those applying generally): to identify clearly, by reference to the challenges faced by the school, the reasons for proposing closure; to identify, explore and assess all reasonable alternatives to closure; to include the results of these procedures in the proposal paper; and, where consultation applies, to proceed to consultation only if the proposer is satisfied that implementation is “the most appropriate response” to the challenges. Section 5.4 imposes a requirement to give conscientious consideration to objections. Then, section 5.6 requires that the decision letter set out clearly the reasons for the decision; and, picking up the language used in section 1.8, it continues:
“Additionally a decision letter for a proposal to discontinue a school designated as a rural school must state why the proposer is satisfied that such implementation is the most appropriate response to the reasons it identified for formulating the proposal.”
See also Chapter 7 of the Code (paragraph 21 above; note the final bullet point).[86]To put the matter shortly: a decision-maker will be acting on the basis of the legal requirement for a “strong case” if(a) it starts from the presumption against closure,(b) it follows, in addition to other requirements, the requirements of section 1.8 regarding the identification of challenges, the consideration of alternatives, the formulation of reasons, and (where appropriate) the consultation, as well as the requirements of section 5.4 regarding the consideration of objections, and(c) it makes its decision on the basis that, after doing all these things, it is satisfied that implementation of the proposal is the most appropriate response. That is what the defendant did. Accordingly, the defendant made no error as to the correct legal test.[87]Mr Howells suggested that the true financial position was such that there was not in fact a strong case for closure. That is not a proper basis on which to advance a case that the defendant applied the wrong legal test. The complaint that the case for closure was not strong is simply an objection on the merits of the Decision, which is not a matter for this court.[88]Accordingly, I refuse permission to apply on this ground.

Ground 3: breach of the socio-economic duty

[89]Ground 3 is to the following effect. The defendant accepts that the Decision was a decision “of a strategic nature” and that the socio-economic duty applied. However, the defendant was never referred to, and received no advice in respect of, the Guidance, and no document provided to the Council mentioned the Guidance. Therefore it did not take the Guidance into account, as it was required to do by section 1(2) of the 2010 Act. Further, it is impossible to assume that the Council understood the socio-economic duty itself and the evidence relevant to it, and it is unclear how the material in the IIA (see in particular paragraph 65 above) was considered or assessed. Accordingly, the ground has two limbs: first, that the defendant did not have regard to the Guidance as required by section 1(2); second, that the defendant has not demonstrated that it complied with the duty under section 1(1).[90]This ground was not advanced in the letter before claim and is, in my view, opportunistic and lacking in substance.[91]As for the complaint that the defendant failed to have regard to the Guidance, the defendant accepts that it did not do so but contends that the failure is irrelevant for the purposes of the claim. The section of the Statement of Facts and Grounds that deals with Ground 3, namely paragraphs 56 to 58, does not identify any particular part of the Guidance that was relevant to be taken into account or explain why failure to have regard to it might have been relevant. Paragraph 3 of the claimant’s Reply states in part:
“The Claimant does not have to show a breach of the guidance – it is a statutory mandatory consideration which the Defendant admits was not taken into account in the decision-making process. All of the extracts set out at §§ 40 – 44 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds were relevant. In particular, it was for the decision-maker to confirm in the decision how the likely impact was understood and how it considered whether the policy could be changed to reduce inequality of outcome.”
The extracts referred to in the Statement of Facts and Grounds were: the definition of socio-economic disadvantage; the definition of inequalities of outcome; the definition of decisions of a strategic nature; the final part of the extract, quoted in paragraph 26 above, from the section “Demonstrating ‘due regard’” (“Decision makers within public bodies … as a result of socio-economic disadvantage”); and the 5-stage approach in “The Duty in practice” (paragraph 27 above).[92]The complaint in the Statement of Facts and Grounds, as explained or amplified in the Reply, sufficiently shows that the allegation of failing to have regard to the Guidance adds nothing to the allegation that the defendant failed to discharge the socio-economic duty in section 1(1) or to demonstrate that the duty has been discharged. That is not surprising, because, although section 1(2) imposes a requirement to take the Guidance into account, section 1 does not give to the Welsh Ministers or anyone else power to enlarge or modify the socio-economic duty; rather, it empowers them to give guidance as to how the decision-maker might have due regard to the desirability of exercising its functions in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. It follows that, if an authority has in fact discharged the socio-economic duty in section 1(1), its failure to have adverted to guidance issued under section 1(2A) could not constitute a rational basis on which to quash the decision. However, and as indicated below, the defendant’s decision-making process was throughout in fact informed by the Guidance; although no express mention was made of it at the meeting on 4 March 2026 or in the Decision Letter, the entire exercise was structured with regard to the Guidance.[93]As for the actual complaint of breach of the socio-economic duty, Mr Howells relied on the dictaof Elisabeth Laing J in R (Tilley) v Vale of Glamorgan Council [2015] EWHC 3194 (Admin) at [54]-[55] in the context of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the 2010 Act:
“54. I would also have held that the decision was unlawful because I cannot conclude on the material I have seen that the Cabinet had due regard to the needs referred to in section 149 of the 2010 Act. First, there was, in the report, no analysis, let alone a rigorous analysis, of the proposal in the light of the needs referred to in section 149. Second, the report was positively misleading, as it did not draw attention to the conclusions of the area-specific EIAs [equality impact assessments] that there was an adverse impact (in contrast to the conclusion of the earlier EIA, which was expressly mentioned, that there was not). The text of the report could be read as implying that the specific EIAs did not reveal an adverse impact, either. 55. Not much would have been required, but the report should have summarised the effect of section 149 for the Cabinet, told them clearly that in contrast with the general EIA, the area-specific EIAs did reveal an adverse impact, and explained why despite that impact, officers recommended that the proposals be adopted. The available information was not presented to the Cabinet in a way which enables me to say, on the balance of probabilities, that the Cabinet did have due regard to the statutory needs. I bear in mind that there is a full and accurate exposition of section 149 in the EIAs. But as I have said there is no evidence (for example, in the Leader’s witness statement) that members of the Cabinet followed the recommendation in the report that they take the EIAs into account. Members were given no help or direction either in the report or at the meeting about why they should look at the specific EIAs, or what they would find there. One function of an officer’s report is clearly to present the issues and the evidence to members in a way that enables them to reach an informed and lawful decision. In the case of a decision such as this, the function of appendices to a report is to provide supporting information for reference purposes. Members should not be expected to research appendices for material which is significant to the decision and which should, instead, be drawn to their attention in the text of the report. This report did not perform its function in relation section 149 of the 2010 Act.”
Those dicta were referred to by Lewis J in R (Tilley) v Vale of Glamorgan Council (No. 2) [2016] EWHC 2272 (Admin) at [38]; having referred to remarks in the Court of Appeal in another case, he continued:
“38. That approach accords with the approach of Elisabeth Laing J. in the first judicial review in this case. The judge there was dealing with a consideration, the need to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations, that the law (section 149 of the 2010 Act) required the decision-maker to take into account. The judge held that the report in issue there did not contain any analysis of the proposal by reference to the needs referred to in section 149 of the 2010 Act and it was misleading as it did not draw attention to the conclusions of the equality impact assessments in respect of specific areas which indicated that the proposals would have an adverse impact. The judge considered that not much was needed but members were given no assistance by the report or at the meeting about why they should look at the equality impact assessments or what they would find there. On the facts, therefore, the judge considered that the report did not perform its function of enabling members to reach an informed and lawful decision: see paragraphs 52 to 54 of the judgment in R (Tilley) v Vale of Glamorgan [2015] EWHC 3194 (Admin). Furthermore, it may be permissible to infer that councillors will have read a document where they have been given a copy of the document or if they have been expressly referred to it and advised that they need to have regard to it. It may not be possible, however, to infer that they have read an ancillary document if they are not advised to do so. Thus, it could not be inferred that councillors would have read an equality impact assessment for the purposes of discharging their duty under section 149 of the 2010 Act when its contents were summarised in an appendix but they were not provided with a copy and not expressly or impliedly told to consider the contents of the document itself: see R (Hunt) v North Somerset Council [2014] LGR 1 at paragraphs 82 to 84.”
[94]It is clear that Elisabeth Laing J’s dicta in Tilley are not to be treated as laying down any principle of law, of general application, that a failure by an officer report to advise on a particular legal duty and expressly to present issues and considerations relevant to that duty renders a subsequent decision unlawful. On the facts of the case, the judge considered that the officer report was misleading and that it could not be inferred that the councillors had adverted to the material relevant to their deliberations and decision. However, the proper conclusions in any given case will depend on the facts of that case.[95]In the present case, the relevant context for the Decision was the statutory scheme under the 2013 Act and the Code. The councillors had the Proposal Paper, which specifically adverted to factors required by the Code to be taken into account, including equality issues, and summarised the conclusions of the draft IIA, which the Proposal Paper made clear would be kept under revision and updated. The IIA, in its updated and completed form, was provided both to Cabinet and to the Council; the evidence shows that it also was one of the papers available to the public in an electronic pack. The scope of the IIA has been mentioned above (see paragraphs 63 to 65). Of particular note is the consideration given to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the operation of which has a clear relationship with the manner of discharge of the socio-economic duty.[96]I have set out extracts from the section of the IIA that addresses the socio-economic duty. The following points may be noted. First, the duty itself is explained in the header to the section. Second, as is apparent from the IIA itself and is confirmed in the witness statement of Mr Carter, the socio-economic impact assessment in the IIA was itself structured on the basis of the Guidance; thus the “Requirements” reflect the substance of the 5-stage approach mentioned in the Guidance; they address evidence, engagement, protected characteristics, places and communities of interest, the main impacts of the Proposal, and the potential for mitigating inequalities of outcome. Although at the meeting of the Council on 4 March 2026 the councillors were not expressly referred to the Guidance, the Guidance had in fact provided the structure for the Proposal and the consideration of the factors relevant to the decision whether or not to implement the Proposal.[97]Mr Howells submitted that, in circumstances where the Officer Report, the Minutes of the meeting on 4 March 2026 and the Decision Letter all make no mention of the IIA and where the Cabinet Member for Education, Councillor Davies, does not claim to have mentioned the IIA at the meeting of the Council, it is not to be inferred that the councillors adverted to the matters in the IIA or had due regard to the desirability of reducing inequalities of outcome.[98]I reject that submission. First, the following observation of the Court of Appeal in R (End Violence Against Women Coalition) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] EWCA Civ 350, [2021] 1 WLR 5829, is relevant by analogy:
“86. Section 149 of the 2010 Act … requires a public authority to give the equality needs which are listed in section 149 the regard which is ‘due’ in the particular context. It does not dictate a particular result. It does not require an elaborate structure of secondary decision making every time a public authority makes any decision which might engage the listed equality needs, however remotely. The court is not concerned with formulaic box-ticking, but with the question whether, in substance, the public authority has complied with section 149. A public authority can comply with section 149 even if the decision maker does not refer to section 149 (see, for example, Hottak v. Southwark London Borough Council [2015] UKSC 30; [2016] AC 811).”
Second, the context of the decision-making process, as explained above, is relevant, because it had the effect of directing attention towards social implications of the Proposal and any decision made in respect of it. Third, in the absence of good reason to the contrary, it is proper to assume that the councillors discharged their functions diligently and, in so doing, read the reports provided to them. Fourth, the councillors were provided with all the necessary papers. Fifth, the IIA was not provided as a mere annex to a report, so as to be only the supporting material for summaries in the report: it was a specific document, itself in the nature of a substantive report. Sixth, the conclusions of the draft IIA relevant to the socio-economic duty were summarised in the Proposal Paper. Seventh, whatever may or may not be the negative impacts of closure of the School in other regards, the implications of the Proposal for the socio-economic duty were, in fact, identified as being minor; the summaries in the Proposal Paper succinctly set out the substance of what was in the IIA. Eighth, as Elias LJ said, again in the context of the public sector equality duty, in R (Hurley & Moore) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin):
“78. The concept of ‘due regard’ requires the court to ensure that there has been a proper and conscientious focus on the statutory criteria, but if that is done, the court cannot interfere with the decision simply because it would have given greater weight to the equality implications of the decision than did the decision maker. In short, the decision maker must be clear precisely what the equality implications are when he puts them in the balance, and he must recognise the desirability of achieving them, but ultimately it is for him to decide what weight they should be given in the light of all relevant factors.”
[99]In my judgment, the complaint that there was a breach of the socio-economic duty in this case is not arguable. Permission is refused on this ground.

Section 31, Senior Courts Act 1981

[100]As I have rejected the complaints that the Decision was made unlawfully, the points raised before me concerning section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 do not arise for my decision, and any discussion of what conclusions I might have reached is rather artificial. Therefore I shall address the matter briefly.[101]Section 31 provides in relevant part: “(2A) The High Court—(a) must refused to grant relief on an application for judicial review … if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.” “(3C) When considering whether to grant leave to make an application for judicial review, the High Court—(a) may of its own motion consider whether the outcome for the applicant would have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred, and(b) must consider that question if the defendant asks it to do so. (3D) If, on considering that question, it appears to the High Court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different, the court must refuse to grant leave.” (a) may of its own motion consider whether the outcome for the applicant would have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred, and (b) must consider that question if the defendant asks it to do so.[102]The approach of the courts to section 31(2A) was considered by Lewis LJ (with whose judgment Nicola Davies LJ and Holgate LJ agreed) in R (Bradbury) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2025] EWCA Civ 489, [2025] 4 WLR 58, at [70]-[75]. The following passage will suffice. “70. Section 31(2A) of the 1981 Act provides that a court must refuse to grant a remedy on a claim for judicial review if it appears to the court that(1) it is highly likely(2) that the outcome for the claimant would not be substantially different(3) if the conduct complained of had not occurred. The outcome for the claimant is, usually, the decision or other measure that the public authority has taken. The ‘conduct complained of’ is defined in section 31(8) as the conduct, or the alleged conduct, of the public body defendant which it is said justifies the grant of a remedy. In other words, the ‘conduct complained of’ is the legal error or flaw which would justify the grant of a remedy in judicial review (unless a remedy was refused by reason of section 31(2A) or for some other discretionary reason). 71. In relation to section 31(2A), the court is concerned with evaluating the significance of the error on the decision-making process. It is considering the decision that the public body has reached, and assessing the impact of the error on that decision in order to ascertain if it is highly likely that the outcome (the decision) would not have been substantially different even if the decision-maker had not made that error. It is not for the court to try and predict what the public authority might have done if it had not made the error. If the court cannot tell how the decision-maker would have approached matters, or what decision it would have reached, if it had not made the error in question, the requirements of section 31(2A) are unlikely to be satisfied. 72. There is limited guidance from this Court as to the operation of section 31(2A). The judgment of Coulson LJ, with whom Floyd and Asplin LJJ agreed, in R (Gathercole) v Suffolk County Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1179 at paragraphs 35 to 45 sets out the purpose underlying the statutory provision and how it operated on the facts of that particular case. There is a helpful academic review of the case law in an article by Lia Lawton entitled ‘Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act in the Courts’ in [2025] Public Law 239. Further, the Court of Appeal considered the section in R (Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport (WWF-UK Intervening) [2020] EWCA Civ 214, [2020] PTSR 1446 (the decision was overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court but these observations were not the subject of comment in the Supreme Court and remain an accurate and helpful description of the position). It said this:
‘272. The new statutory test modifies the Simplex test in three ways. First, the matter is not simply one of discretion, but rather becomes one of duty provided the statutory criteria are satisfied. This is subject to a discretion vested in the court nevertheless to grant a remedy on grounds of ‘exceptional public interest’
. Secondly, the outcome does not inevitably have to be the same; it will suffice if it is merely ‘highly likely’. And thirdly, it does not have to be shown that the outcome would have been exactly the same; it will suffice that it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been ‘substantially different for the claimant. 273. It would not be appropriate to give any exhaustive guidance on how these provisions should be applied. Much will depend on the particular facts of the case before the court. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the court should still bear in mind that Parliament has not altered the fundamental relationship between the courts and the executive. In particular, courts should still be cautious about straying, even subconsciously, into the forbidden territory of assessing the merits of a public decision under challenge by way of judicial review. If there has been an error of law, for example in the approach the executive has taken to its decision-making process, it will often be difficult or impossible for a court to conclude that it is ‘highly likely’ that the outcome would not have been ‘substantially different’ if the executive had gone about the decision-making process in accordance with the law. Courts should also not lose sight of their fundamental function, which is to maintain the rule of law. Furthermore, although there is undoubtedly a difference between the old Simplex test and the new statutory test, ‘the threshold remains a high one’ (see the judgment of Sales LJ, as he then was, in R (Public and Commercial Services Union) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2018] ICR 269, para 89).’ … 74. … [T]he question for the court is whether it is highly likely that there would be no substantial difference in outcome if the legal error had not occurred. That is a high test to surmount. … The section emphatically does not require the court to embark on an exercise where the error is left out of account and the court tries to predict what the public body would have done if the error had not been made. Approaching section 31(2A) in that way would run the risk of the court forming a view on the merits and deciding if it thinks the public body would reach that view if it had not made the error. Rather, the focus should be on the impact of the error on the decision-making process that the decision-maker undertook to ascertain whether it is highly likely that the decision that the public body took would not have been substantially different if the error had not occurred.” ‘272. The new statutory test modifies the Simplex test in three ways. First, the matter is not simply one of discretion, but rather becomes one of duty provided the statutory criteria are satisfied. This is subject to a discretion vested in the court nevertheless to grant a remedy on grounds of ‘exceptional public interest’. Secondly, the outcome does not inevitably have to be the same; it will suffice if it is merely ‘highly likely’. And thirdly, it does not have to be shown that the outcome would have been exactly the same; it will suffice that it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been ‘substantially different for the claimant. 273. It would not be appropriate to give any exhaustive guidance on how these provisions should be applied. Much will depend on the particular facts of the case before the court. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the court should still bear in mind that Parliament has not altered the fundamental relationship between the courts and the executive. In particular, courts should still be cautious about straying, even subconsciously, into the forbidden territory of assessing the merits of a public decision under challenge by way of judicial review. If there has been an error of law, for example in the approach the executive has taken to its decision-making process, it will often be difficult or impossible for a court to conclude that it is ‘highly likely’ that the outcome would not have been ‘substantially different’ if the executive had gone about the decision-making process in accordance with the law. Courts should also not lose sight of their fundamental function, which is to maintain the rule of law. Furthermore, although there is undoubtedly a difference between the old Simplex test and the new statutory test, ‘the threshold remains a high one’ (see the judgment of Sales LJ, as he then was, in R (Public and Commercial Services Union) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2018] ICR 269, para 89).’[103]If the conduct complained of under Ground 2 (no recognition of the “strong case” requirement) and Ground 3 (breach of the socio-economic duty) had been established, I would nevertheless have refused permission in accordance with section 31(3D). The allegation that the correct legal test was not applied seems to me to have no substantive content, even if (contrary to my view) there was an analytical difference between the “strong case” test and the test applied. I regard it as overwhelmingly likely that explicit reference to the need for a “strong case” would have made no difference at all. Similarly, the claimant’s case on the socio-economic duty seems to me to be devoid of any real substance, not least because no socio-economic implications of the Decision have been identified beyond those that were expressly adverted to by the defendant.[104]However, if I had considered that unlawful conduct as complained of under Ground 1 had been established, I doubt whether I would have refused permission under section 31(3D) or relief under section 31(3A). The reality may very well be that no different decision might have been reached, or might in future be reached, because the viability of the School is at best precarious and the disproportionate call that it makes on resources is obvious. Even so, if it were the case that the defendant proceeded on a materially mistaken understanding of the financial case for closure, it is doubtful if it could be said that it was highly likely that the decision would have been the same if the error had not been made. I express these views with significant qualifications, because a proper opinion on the issues under section 31(3A) and 31(3D) could only be based on specific findings as to unlawful conduct.

Delay and Discretion

[105]Nevertheless, if I had accepted the grounds advanced by the claimant, I would have granted permission but refused, in my discretion, to make a quashing order, both under the High Court’s general discretion as to remedy and under section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.[106]Section 31(6) provides: “(6) Where the High Court considers that there has been undue delay in making an application for judicial review, the court may refuse to grant—(a) leave for the making of the application; or(b) any relief sought on the application if it considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration.” (a) leave for the making of the application; or (b) any relief sought on the application[107]I would have refused a quashing order for the following reasons. 1) There was undue delay. The Decision was made on 4 March 2026 and the Decision Letter was dated 5 March 2026. The claim was issued on 15 May 2026, which is about two months and one week later. That is within the 3-month longstop period, but in the circumstances of this case I do not regard it as prompt. The Decision takes full effect, upon the closure of the School, on 31 August 2026, but implementation of the Decision does not begin on that date, because arrangements have to be made and have been made. 2) The difficulty caused by a quashing order in these proceedings is evident from a consideration of the timeline. The order for a rolled-up hearing was made on 16 June 2026. The hearing took place on 23 July 2026, the earliest available date. This judgment was made available in draft on 30 July 2026, one month before final implementation of the Decision. 3) Mr Carter’s witness statement states that, if the claim were to succeed, it is unlikely that the School would be operationally viable for the start of term on 1 September 2026. The employed teacher at the School has accepted an offer of employment in another school within the county, with a start-date of 1 September 2026. The School would therefore be reliant on agency staff. Of the 17 pupils latterly registered at the School, all but 3 have applied for places at other schools, and all of those have accepted offers of places. Further, the head teacher has undertaken much of the administrative work required for the closure of the School, such as terminating contracts for such things as photocopiers or transferring them to another school. In truth, the reorganisation is now largely complete. To attempt to undo it would be to invite chaos, disruption and considerable expenditure and would create the risk that the School would remain open but incapable of adequate functioning in September. 4) The order for a rolled-up hearing also refused an application for interim relief. If I may respectfully say so, I agree that the refusal of interim relief and the direction for a rolled-up hearing was the entirely correct way of dealing with the matter in the circumstances. An order for interim relief would have been inappropriate. In her second witness statement, the litigation friend observed:
“3. By the time the hearing takes place, many families are likely to have accepted school places at other schools such as Ysgol Llangain. These families would have gone through the administrative process of moving their children to a different school, had the expense of buying new uniforms, made relevant transport arrangements alongside attending any transition activities. This list is not exhaustive, and other preparations may have been made for this upcoming September, including preparing their children for the emotional impact of moving to a different school. There are also families who have not accepted school places elsewhere due to ongoing judicial review proceedings as to the legality of school’s closure from 31 August 2026. For all parents involved, there is a significant amount of uncertainty which is resulting in practical difficulties. 4. Parents are aware that the staff at Ysgol Llansteffan have already been relocated within the local authority or made redundant. If this judicial review action succeeds and the decision to discontinue Ysgol Llansteffan from 31 August 2026 is quashed, parties are concerned that there will not be sufficient notice for all parties involved to ensure that there is adequate planning time for their children’s education from September 2026.”
This seems to me to be a reasonable recognition of the difficulties that a quashing order would cause. Yet those difficulties are the inevitable consequence of the challenge being brought when it was. 5) Mr Howells submitted that these problems were largely due to the defendant’s own conduct and that they could now be avoided or at least mitigated. He observed that the claimant first put the defendant on notice of the prospective challenge 15 days after the Decision and that the defendant took 34 days to give a full response. I was not referred to the correspondence. But the fact is that, if a challenge needs to be brought urgently, it must be brought urgently. Mr Howells noted that the teacher’s application for employment in another school was made on 1 May 2026 and the employment was accepted on 8 May 2026. While true, this does not address the difficulty occasioned by a challenge that would, if successful as to remedy, result in a quashing order during the summer vacation and less than one month before the start of the new term. Mr Howells suggested that the relocation of pupils to other schools could be reversed; that, however, is unrealistic, both for the practical reasons identified by the litigation friend and because, even if a quashing order were made, the future of the School would be at best precarious, which would surely make a difference to parental decisions at this late stage. Mr Howells appeared to criticise the defendant for the timing of its Decision, though I do not see that this is a proper matter of complaint. 6) I take into account, also, what I regard as the reality of the situation. Even if (as I do not accept) the defendant’s Decision is open to the criticisms made of it, it resulted from serious and obvious concerns and a detailed and generally compliant process. The background has been summarised above, with reference to the MEP Strategy and the defendant’s budget strategy report, and it is dealt with in far greater detail in Mr Carter’s witness statement. The Proposal, the Objections Report and the evidence of Councillor Davies show that, whatever may be the precise figures at any particular point in time, the School is unlikely to have sustainable viability and accounts for a markedly disproportionate share of the resources within the defendant’s stretched education budget. The defendant has given serious consideration to these matters, even if (as I do not accept) its Decision was flawed. Predictions as to the future are impermissible as a basis for making decisions under section 31(2A) or section 31(3D), but in my view it would not be right to close one’s eyes to the likely result of any further decision-making process when deciding, in circumstances such as the present, whether to exercise the discretion to withhold the remedy sought.

Conclusion

[108]I refuse permission on all grounds.